Are we getting stupider? Why or why not? Evidence?

[High_Gravity]

Hi, Foxfyre!

I have a HUGE problem with UBC, perfected or not, as I am an American who believes people should be responsible for their own choices and the government must never have power to make those choices for the people. But neither should government reward those who make poor choices. So focus the remedy there and not through artificial manipulation of the population.

I personally have a problem with letting children starve simply because their parents made a poor choice and became pregnant as a consequence.

The only solution to irresponsible parenthood is to make it impossible, or at least unlikely. You cannot simply starve children because you don't like the fact that their parents didn't plan ahead.

It could soon be possible, however, to make sure that no one can claim that a child was "an accident". It could be possible to ensure that fewer federal dollars are spent on unwanted children, and the social consequences of unwanted children -- like increased crime and increased poverty.

And again, I want to stress that anyone who doesn't want to be exposed to UBC would still have the CHOICE of opting out, via bottled water -- which is cheap and easily available everywhere in gallon jugs.

UBC is also much less likely to cause the widespread social harm that your proposed Constitutional Amendment would cause. As HG points out, there would be riots... and if the riots are not successful, there would be a LOT of bodies to burn...

-- Paravani

Whats UBC?

 

[High_Gravity]

Hi, Foxfyre!

I have a HUGE problem with UBC, perfected or not, as I am an American who believes people should be responsible for their own choices and the government must never have power to make those choices for the people. But neither should government reward those who make poor choices. So focus the remedy there and not through artificial manipulation of the population.

I personally have a problem with letting children starve simply because their parents made a poor choice and became pregnant as a consequence.

The only solution to irresponsible parenthood is to make it impossible, or at least unlikely. You cannot simply starve children because you don't like the fact that their parents didn't plan ahead.

It could soon be possible, however, to make sure that no one can claim that a child was "an accident". It could be possible to ensure that fewer federal dollars are spent on unwanted children, and the social consequences of unwanted children -- like increased crime and increased poverty.

And again, I want to stress that anyone who doesn't want to be exposed to UBC would still have the CHOICE of opting out, via bottled water -- which is cheap and easily available everywhere in gallon jugs.

UBC is also much less likely to cause the widespread social harm that your proposed Constitutional Amendment would cause. As HG points out, there would be riots... and if the riots are not successful, there would be a LOT of bodies to burn...

-- Paravani

I have a problem allowing children to starve for ANY reason. I have a problem leaving children with parents who won't feed them. Or those who can't feed them for the long haul. There has always been help for people who are having a temporary bad patch, but nobody should be subsidizing people for having kids they have no intention of supporting. And it should not be the kids who suffer for that. Those children should be taken away from bad parents and returned to them only when those parents are ready to accept grown up responsibilities to feed, house, clothes, educate, and yes love their children.

And once there is no government subsidy for having children you can't support, we will see a whole lot fewer children that are not being properly cared for by their parents.

EXACTLY! Or at least, I hope so.Than again people in countries like Somalia and El Salvador have a bunch of kids and there is no support in those countries, although they have their children for completely different reasons.

 

[KissMy]

Our world population has ballooned to 7 BILLION people. That's so many people that if you counted ten of them every second, it would take you almost 222 YEARS to count them all! That large a population places a huge strain on the environment and resources of our planet, and if we don't get a whole lot smarter very fast, our civilization will collapse under the weight of all those billions.

Gee wiz - Where have we heard these doom & gloom predictions before? Save the planet, kill yourself.

It has been way over 100 years since the Government Scientist predicted we peaked in oil production in the 1800's.

“I take this opportunity to express my opinion in the strongest terms, that the amazing exhibition of oil which has characterized the last twenty, and will probably characterize the next ten or twenty years, is nevertheless, not only geologically but historically, a temporary and vanishing phenomenon – one which young men will live to see come to its natural end” (1886, J.P. Lesley, state geologist of Pennsylvania).

- “There is little or no chance for more oil in California” (1886, U.S. Geological Survey).

- “There is little or no chance for more oil in Kansas and Texas” (1891, U.S. Geological Survey).

- “Total future production limit of 5.7 billion barrels of oil, perhaps a ten-year supply” (1914, U.S. Bureau of Mines).

- "Within the next two to five years the oil fields of this country will reach their maximum production, and from that time on we will face an ever-increasing decline." (1919 director of the U.S. Bureau of Mines)

- "Oil shales in Colorado and Utah would be exploited to produce oil, because the demand for oil could not be met by existing production." (1919 National Geographic magazine)

- "The time is, indeed, well in sight, when the United States will be nearing the end of some of its available stocks of raw materials on which her industrial supremacy has been largely built. America is running through her stores of domestic oil and is obliged to look abroad for future reserves. (September 1919, E. Mackay Edgar, in Sperling's Journal)

- "The position of the United States in regard to oil can best be characterized as precarious." (January 1920 Dr. George Otis Smith, Director of the United States Geological Survey)

- "Americans will have to depend on foreign sources or use less oil, or perhaps both." (May 1920 Dr. George Otis Smith, Director of the United States Geological Survey)

- "On the whole, therefore, we must expect that, unless our consumption is checked, we shall by 1925 be dependent on foreign oil fields to the extent of 150,000,000 barrels and possibly as much as 200,000,000 of crude each year, except insofar as the situation may at that time, perhaps, be helped to a slight extent by shale oil. Add to this probability that within 5 years--perhaps 3 years only--our domestic production will begin to fall off with increasing rapidity, due to the exhaustion of our reserves" (1920 David White, United States Geological Survey)

- During the period 1919-22, imports of crude oil from Mexico had been large--equal to 22 percent of total United States consumption in 1921. But salt water began to appear in some Mexican wells, and by 1921 geologists were debating whether Mexican production was not "through." in commenting upon the Mexican situation. "A great slump in Mexican production seems sooner or later inevitable. Thus there was not only alarm about the United States oil potential but also about our primary foreign source of supply. Lendling encouragement to these doubts were statements appearing in foreign publications describing the United States oil position." (1921, David White of the United States Geological Survey)

- "Given a resumption of trade and the consequent demand for oil products in, at the most, a year or two, the world will be confronted with an oil shortage such as has never been experienced before. (1921, E. Mackay Edgar)

- “Reserves to last only thirteen years” (1939, Department of the Interior).

- “Reserves to last thirteen years” (1951, Department of the Interior, Oil and Gas Division).

- “We could use up all of the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade” (President Jimmy Carter speaking in 1978 to the entire world).

- “At the present rate of use, it is estimated that coal reserves will last 200 more years. Petroleum may run out in 20 to 30 years, and natural gas may last only another 70 years” (Ralph M. Feather, Merrill textbook Science Connections Annotated Teacher’s Version, 1990, p. 493).

- “At the current rate of consumption, some scientists estimate that the world’s known supplies of oil … will be used up within your lifetime” (1993, The United States and its People).

- “The supply of fossil fuels is being used up at an alarming rate. Governments must help save our fossil fuel supply by passing laws limiting their use” (Merrill/Glenco textbook, Biology, An Everyday Experience, 1992).

Quotes like these could fill a thousand pages easily. _PeakOil?

One interesting example of a big oil find in the midst of "an exhausted field" occurred in Kern County, California. Kern River Oil Field was discovered in 1899, and initially it was thought that only 10 percent of its heavy, viscous crude could be recovered. In 1942, after more than four decades of modest production, the field was estimated to still hold 54 million barrels of recoverable oil. As pointed out in 1995 by Morris Adelman, professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and one of the few remaining energy gurus, “in the next forty-four years, it produced not 54 million barrels but 736 million barrels, and it had another 970 million barrels remaining.” But even this estimate was wrong. In November 2007 U.S. oil giant Chevron announced that cumulative production had reached two billion barrels. Today, Kern River still puts out more than 80,000 barrels per day, and Chevron reckons that the remaining reserves are about 480 million barrels.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

^^^ In my opinion, those who refuse to accept a homework assignment that isn't in print shouldn't be a teacher. To me, them being like that is like forcing someone to do things with their right hand when they are really a left handed person.

Your conclusion is irrational and that analogy makes no sense whatsoever.

Oh well. If you don't like where it is that I stand on things, that isn't my problem.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

 

[Foxfyre]

Bottled water is plentiful and cheap? You could have fooled me. The last time I priced it out, bottled water purchased by the liter runs about $10/gallon. Purchased by the gallon it is about $2.50 but who is going to lug around gallon jugs of water?

Let's make a deal. You leave my water supply alone except for purifying it, and I'll agree that people can buy bottled water laced with UBC. Deal?

 

[Foxfyre]

Hi, Foxfyre!

I have a HUGE problem with UBC, perfected or not, as I am an American who believes people should be responsible for their own choices and the government must never have power to make those choices for the people. But neither should government reward those who make poor choices. So focus the remedy there and not through artificial manipulation of the population.

I personally have a problem with letting children starve simply because their parents made a poor choice and became pregnant as a consequence.

The only solution to irresponsible parenthood is to make it impossible, or at least unlikely. You cannot simply starve children because you don't like the fact that their parents didn't plan ahead.

It could soon be possible, however, to make sure that no one can claim that a child was "an accident". It could be possible to ensure that fewer federal dollars are spent on unwanted children, and the social consequences of unwanted children -- like increased crime and increased poverty.

And again, I want to stress that anyone who doesn't want to be exposed to UBC would still have the CHOICE of opting out, via bottled water -- which is cheap and easily available everywhere in gallon jugs.

UBC is also much less likely to cause the widespread social harm that your proposed Constitutional Amendment would cause. As HG points out, there would be riots... and if the riots are not successful, there would be a LOT of bodies to burn...

-- Paravani

Whats UBC?

It is experimental biology to alter natural processes. Growth hormones or growth restricting substances would be UBC products. What Paravani is suggesting is a substance that would prevent pregnancy generally administered, say in the water supply. Considering how well all this has worked out in artificially manipulating our food supply, how comfortable should any of us be in government manipulation of our biological processes?

The flouride controversy hasn't been fully settled yet for heaven's sake.

 

[High_Gravity]

Hi, Foxfyre!



I personally have a problem with letting children starve simply because their parents made a poor choice and became pregnant as a consequence.

The only solution to irresponsible parenthood is to make it impossible, or at least unlikely. You cannot simply starve children because you don't like the fact that their parents didn't plan ahead.

It could soon be possible, however, to make sure that no one can claim that a child was "an accident". It could be possible to ensure that fewer federal dollars are spent on unwanted children, and the social consequences of unwanted children -- like increased crime and increased poverty.

And again, I want to stress that anyone who doesn't want to be exposed to UBC would still have the CHOICE of opting out, via bottled water -- which is cheap and easily available everywhere in gallon jugs.

UBC is also much less likely to cause the widespread social harm that your proposed Constitutional Amendment would cause. As HG points out, there would be riots... and if the riots are not successful, there would be a LOT of bodies to burn...

-- Paravani

Whats UBC?

It is experimental biology to alter natural processes. Growth hormones or growth restricting substances would be UBC products. What Paravani is suggesting is a substance that would prevent pregnancy generally administered, say in the water supply. Considering how well all this has worked out in artificially manipulating our food supply, how comfortable should any of us be in government manipulation of our biological processes?

The flouride controversy hasn't been fully settled yet for heaven's sake.

Hmm, I don't think this would be a good idea.

 

[paravani]

Whats UBC?

UBC is Universal Birth Control. It would make every child a choice.

Parents would have to plan in advance to get pregnant, rather than thoughtlessly risking unwanted pregnancy every time they have sex without protection.

Foxfyre is not a biochemist, so she's making it up as she goes along.

Any acceptable form of UBC must have zero adverse affect on the population -- that's a condition of its use. It would have as much affect on you as the fluoride that is currently used in most major metropolitan water systems, or the hormones in your beef.


--Paravani

 

[High_Gravity]

Whats UBC?

UBC is Universal Birth Control. It would make every child a choice.

Parents would have to plan in advance to get pregnant, rather than thoughtlessly risking unwanted pregnancy every time they have sex without protection.

Foxfyre is not a biochemist, so she's making it up as she goes along.

Any acceptable form of UBC must have zero adverse affect on the population -- that's a condition of its use. It would have as much affect on you as the fluoride that is currently used in most major metropolitan water systems, or the hormones in your beef.


--Paravani

That sounds too good to be true, what is the down side?

 

[paravani]

Hi, Foxfyre!

I've priced out water by the gallon to store for disaster preparation. It costs about 80 cents at Walmart; less if you buy it at your grocery store in refillable jugs.

If that's a problem for objectors, it would probably be possible to make it available for free to anyone who brings their own jug. Certainly, if the price of bottled water is the only objection anyone has to UBC, it's fairly easy to overcome.

The many benefits FAR outweigh the cost of supplying free distilled water.

-- Paravani

Bottled water is plentiful and cheap? You could have fooled me. The last time I priced it out, bottled water purchased by the liter runs about $10/gallon. Purchased by the gallon it is about $2.50 but who is going to lug around gallon jugs of water?

Let's make a deal. You leave my water supply alone except for purifying it, and I'll agree that people can buy bottled water laced with UBC. Deal?

 

[paravani]

Hi, HG!

Whats UBC?

UBC is Universal Birth Control. It would make every child a choice.

Parents would have to plan in advance to get pregnant, rather than thoughtlessly risking unwanted pregnancy every time they have sex without protection.

Foxfyre is not a biochemist, so she's making it up as she goes along.

Any acceptable form of UBC must have zero adverse affect on the population -- that's a condition of its use. It would have as much affect on you as the fluoride that is currently used in most major metropolitan water systems, or the hormones in your beef.


--Paravani

That sounds too good to be true, what is the down side?

The main downside of the idea is that it's new. As far as I know, I'm the only one who has ever thought about it as a possibility for solving a great many social ills.

That's the main reason it has not yet been developed (as far as I know). Nobody has thought of it before this, nobody has talked about it before this, so nobody has started working towards developing it... as far as I know.

New ideas often face an uphill battle, no matter how good they are. People need to be introduced to them slowly... spoon-fed them... otherwise they object to them purely because they are unfamiliar and "crazy".

Thank you VERY much for your opinion on this, HG!

-- Paravani

 

[High_Gravity]

Hi, HG!

UBC is Universal Birth Control. It would make every child a choice.

Parents would have to plan in advance to get pregnant, rather than thoughtlessly risking unwanted pregnancy every time they have sex without protection.

Foxfyre is not a biochemist, so she's making it up as she goes along.

Any acceptable form of UBC must have zero adverse affect on the population -- that's a condition of its use. It would have as much affect on you as the fluoride that is currently used in most major metropolitan water systems, or the hormones in your beef.


--Paravani

That sounds too good to be true, what is the down side?

The main downside of the idea is that it's new. As far as I know, I'm the only one who has ever thought about it as a possibility for solving a great many social ills.

That's the main reason it has not yet been developed (as far as I know). Nobody has thought of it before this, nobody has talked about it before this, so nobody has started working towards developing it... as far as I know.

New ideas often face an uphill battle, no matter how good they are. People need to be introduced to them slowly... spoon-fed them... otherwise they object to them purely because they are unfamiliar and "crazy".

Thank you VERY much for your opinion on this, HG!

-- Paravani

Aot of people like catholics are against birth control period and would never go for this.

 

[Foxfyre]

No dear Paravani, I'm not making it up as I go along, though I did previously misspeak. I meant to say UBC-LIKE products. But you are correct. I am not a bio-chemist though I doubt you have any idea what my training or expertise is.

Here are Wal-mart's water prices for what people would likely be carrying around.
Walmart.com: Grocery: Beverages: Water

And I'm pretty sure Wal-mart's prices are about as cheap as people can buy anywhere. But if we go with what you say you have priced out, it is still darn inconvenient to have to haul sufficient water around with you everywhere you go. Otherwise you're stuck with buying expensive bottled water which is okay in the short term.

The downside of a UBC laced water supply:
1. There would be no way to insulate children from it and no way to know what the effects might be for the long term until it was too late.

2. It forces the responsible to be subjected to a substance in their water to address the irresponsibility of others.

3. It opens the door for government to introduce any substance for any purpose it wants into our water supply.

 

[Unkotare]

^^^ In my opinion, those who refuse to accept a homework assignment that isn't in print shouldn't be a teacher. To me, them being like that is like forcing someone to do things with their right hand when they are really a left handed person.

Your conclusion is irrational and that analogy makes no sense whatsoever.

Oh well. If you don't like where it is that I stand on things, that isn't my problem.

It's not a matter of me "liking it," it is that your conclusion is irraitonal and the analogy makes no sense.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

^^^ Oh well. Your inability to make sense of it is not my problem either.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

 

[Unkotare]

^^^ Oh well. Your inability to make sense of it

Wrong AGAIN. The fault lies entirely with the irrational statement you chose to post.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

^^^ You saying that it is irrational does not make it a fact. You saying that it is is just an opinion.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

 

[sakinago]

Any acceptable form of UBC must be ... invisible. It must be in the water or the air, something that everybody takes for granted and nobody needs to think about at all, ever, unless they want to make a baby.

Air-based UBC is problematic because it could affect animals, and we are already causing extinctions faster than I want to contemplate... which leaves water, specifically city water.

Since we're thinking more about "delivery" problems than social consequences, I assume that you and all the other posters here already recognize the obvious social benefits.

No more unplanned teen pregnancy.
No more abortions.
No more overpopulation.
No more junkie babies.
Fewer unwanted children.
Fewer children on welfare.

Not to mention, over the long run, a much smaller, much smarter population that knows how to plan ahead.

Eventually, we can expect that future population to think about solutions to longterm environmental problems, and to recognize and solve the many other problems that threaten our continued survival. A future population that has been specifically bred for the ability to think ahead would have a much different approach to the problems we so reluctantly face now...

Is there a downside to UBC? Can you think of one?

-- Paravani

Like I said before there is no way to do a sort of UBC that you are looking for, since it is based on tampering with hormones. There is not a feasible way to control the intake of the hormones (like daily pills), and it is not good for men to be constantly ingesting these hormones, or for women to be getting excess. UBC is a nice concept, but what you are looking for is not going to work out, since it is based on hormones.

Are you aware that Americans already ingest hormones in our meat, specifically in our beef? And that it has been shown that artificial hormones are already present in significant quantities in our waterways and environment?

Do you personally feel any effects from the hormones in the beef you eat? No?

There is no question that medical technology has advanced to the point that the development of UBC is inevitable.

What is less inevitable is the public's acceptance of UBC once it is developed. The Catholic Church will unquestionably fight its use; so will Muslim nations, I believe. Probably most of the anti-abortion groups will also be against it, even if it virtually eliminates the occurrence of abortion.

When UBC is perfected, will you personally have any moral argument against its use?

-- Paravani

Theres a big difference between ingesting a cow growth hormone, and human sex hormone. Big big difference. If you look up info on testosterone topical creams for male performance, you are going to see a lot of warnings like, make sure you wash your hands thoroughly. Main reason is if you do not wash your hands thoroughly, and hug your kids or something, just the residue alone is dangerous enough to cause health problems in the kids, or wife or sig-other. Even if we could somehow make sex hormones in the water not dangerous (there is no way I could ever think of), we would see 12 year old boys with full beards, girls getting their period in elementary school, women growing facial hair, and men growing boobs.

Since pregnancy and fertility is so heavily dependent on hormone levels, I dont see a way to universalize it the way you are thinking. If there was a conceivable way, I am sure I would have read about it.

 

[sakinago]

Hi, Foxfyre!



I personally have a problem with letting children starve simply because their parents made a poor choice and became pregnant as a consequence.

The only solution to irresponsible parenthood is to make it impossible, or at least unlikely. You cannot simply starve children because you don't like the fact that their parents didn't plan ahead.

It could soon be possible, however, to make sure that no one can claim that a child was "an accident". It could be possible to ensure that fewer federal dollars are spent on unwanted children, and the social consequences of unwanted children -- like increased crime and increased poverty.

And again, I want to stress that anyone who doesn't want to be exposed to UBC would still have the CHOICE of opting out, via bottled water -- which is cheap and easily available everywhere in gallon jugs.

UBC is also much less likely to cause the widespread social harm that your proposed Constitutional Amendment would cause. As HG points out, there would be riots... and if the riots are not successful, there would be a LOT of bodies to burn...

-- Paravani

Whats UBC?

It is experimental biology to alter natural processes. Growth hormones or growth restricting substances would be UBC products. What Paravani is suggesting is a substance that would prevent pregnancy generally administered, say in the water supply. Considering how well all this has worked out in artificially manipulating our food supply, how comfortable should any of us be in government manipulation of our biological processes?

The flouride controversy hasn't been fully settled yet for heaven's sake.

The flouride "controversy" hasn't been settled just like the vaccinations causing autism controversy hasn't been settled. Its been settled plenty, people just like to cling to their conspiracy theories.

 

[Foxfyre]

Whats UBC?

It is experimental biology to alter natural processes. Growth hormones or growth restricting substances would be UBC products. What Paravani is suggesting is a substance that would prevent pregnancy generally administered, say in the water supply. Considering how well all this has worked out in artificially manipulating our food supply, how comfortable should any of us be in government manipulation of our biological processes?

The flouride controversy hasn't been fully settled yet for heaven's sake.

The flouride "controversy" hasn't been settled just like the vaccinations causing autism controversy hasn't been settled. Its been settled plenty, people just like to cling to their conspiracy theories.

It isn't conspiracy theories though. It is a healthy concern about what is placed in the food and water that we all have to use and what the long range effects of the foreign substances will be. It is understanding that there is no medicine that does not contain some poison and not knowing what the safe levels of those are for all. And it is understanding that if we do not defend our freedom to know and control what is imposed on our bodies, nobody else is going to always do that for us. And there are unethical people in the world who will take advantage of any given situation given opportunity to do so.