Hi,

> the only thing about this i could find to disagree with is that
>part about Africa. the problem there is not the population is too
>big for
> the incoming food, its that the food and money does not get where
>is
> suppose to.

Corruption does not explain everything. Africa is a huge continent.
However, the land is not as fertile as the Americas, and large part
of Africa is desert. They got lot of troubles with the lack of
water, for instance.

As an example, take a look at Canada. A huge country where most of
the populated lands are just a hundred miles across the U.S.
border., because most of the land is freezing in winter. But Canada
just have 30 million people.

The problem with Africa is very simple. A population can't grow in
an exponential rate forever. Population growth is what has kept
Africa in poverty and is getting worst as times goes by. If Africa
stop population growth the economy will improves fast.

Regards,

Omar Vega

>
> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Brad Walsh"
> wrote:
> >
> > Advice on the honeymoon night from an actual women's manual
> published in
> > Victorian England 100+ years ago: "Try to enjoy yourself, but
if
> not, lie
> > still and think of England." (as in, you're doing a good thing
for
> the
> > country by keeping you man at home, and possibly getting
pregnant).
> >
> > One thing that never came up in this discussion thread is the
> natural
> > science behind human population increase. The natural progress
of
> human
> > populations, as with most animal and plant populations, is to
grow
> until the
> > carrying capacity of the environment is reached. Earth's
> population is
> > spiraling higher and higher, as the burden of disease is
reduced,
> and
> > technology makes food and shelter more abundant. The alarming
and
> tragic
> > episodes of starvation in Africa are an example of a population
> bumping up
> > against the limits of its environment's ability to sustain it.
The
> more
> > foreign agencies import resources to sustain those populations,
the
> more we
> > help Africa's population grow past their ability to feed
> themselves. (I'm
> > not so hard-hearted as to say that the solution is to cut off
aid
> and let
> > millions die who could be saved; but I do believe that food aid
> absolutely
> > must be balanced with education, population control assistance
and
> economic
> > and infrastructure improvements). Granted, many countries have
> slowed or
> > stopped population growth. This is something completely new in
the
> world.
> > It may have to do with the flood of images of famine and
crowding
> that we
> > see from other parts of the world. Or it may have to do with
> women's
> > searching for a new role in society, having thrown off the yoke
of
> being the
> > abject baby factory. Or it may just be selfishness. But the
long-
> term
> > history of humanity suggests growth will return.
> >
> > Since orbital habitats are man-made, as long as humans in orbit
are

From: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Omar E. Vega

> Corruption does not explain everything.

No, but it does explain a great deal. And it get worse. Another common
cause of hunger in Africa is tribal warfare. If one side is in a
position to control the food supply, then intentionally-engineered
famines can become a favored method of eliminating the other side.

Another significant factor is Socialist mismanagement of the economy in
general, and agriculture in particular. We see this particularly under
Mugabe. That's nothing specific to African culture; people are starving
in North Korea as well.

> The problem with Africa is very simple. A population can't
> grow in an exponential rate forever. Population growth is
> what has kept Africa in poverty and is getting worst as times
> goes by.

If population growth was the primary cause of poverty, then we might
expect places like Singapore and India to be well on down the decline
into worsened poverty. Instead we see the opposite.

This is the zero-sum view of economics. There's lots of contrary
evidence against that view.

> If Africa stop population growth the economy will improves fast.

You have without a doubt correctly observed a correlation, but be open
that there might be a slight confusion between cause and effect. It
could be that Africa's poverty is directly responsible for its rapid
population growth. And that increased wealth in the developed world is
directly responsible for their declining growth rates.

Regards,

Mike Combs

true, were it not for these problems, they would never have gotten
into the situation they are in. corruption can and does explain why
so much help is useless. the amount of aid they get annual would
take care of the CURRENT situtation in a matter of small number of
years. what COULD possible help future situation would be teaching
them to have fewer children or something along that line.
unfortuantely that requires money, which does not reach the ppl that
need it.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Omar E. Vega"
>
> Hi,
>
> Corruption does not explain everything. Africa is a huge continent.
> However, the land is not as fertile as the Americas, and large
part

Hi Mike,

> > Corruption does not explain everything.
>
> No, but it does explain a great deal. And it get worse. Another
>common
> cause of hunger in Africa is tribal warfare.

Many countries have corruption (Think in Italy, Japan and Mexico!)
and does not mean they have hunger. And also, many countries have
had wars and they did not trigger mass hunger either.

>If one side is in a
> position to control the food supply, then intentionally-engineered
> famines can become a favored method of eliminating the other side.
>

That does not explain it at all. Hunger and social problems are
widespread in Africa. Even in those countries that are not in war.

> Another significant factor is Socialist mismanagement of the
>economy in
> general, and agriculture in particular. We see this particularly
>under
> Mugabe. That's nothing specific to African culture; people are
>starving
> in North Korea as well.

That may be. But look at China. A communist country, at least in
theory.

> If population growth was the primary cause of poverty,
>

Yes it is. I am not talking about population SIZE but population
Growth. Every time it grows the per capita income declines. It is
just impossible to overcome poverty without having fast development
and slowing down population growth at once. Otherwise all the
efforts are in vain.

>then we might
> expect places like Singapore and India to be well on down the
>decline
> into worsened poverty.

Singapore does not have a population growth crisis at all.
India has some spots of prosperity, but most of the population lives
in very bad conditions still today. If Indian starts to develop
strongly it will be because it stopped its growth.

>Instead we see the opposite.
>

Just getting more people does not improve anything. More people has
to be matched with economical development. Otherwise is a disaster.

> This is the zero-sum view of economics. There's lots of contrary
> evidence against that view.
>

Well. That's theory. I have seen the practical side of it at work in
Latin America.

> > If Africa stop population growth the economy will improves fast.
> >
> You have without a doubt correctly observed a correlation, but be
>open
> that there might be a slight confusion between cause and effect.
>It could be that Africa's poverty is directly responsible for its
> rapid population growth.

Actually, is the old "egg and the chicken" problem. Poverty -> pop.
growth -> poverty -> pop. growth, etc.

Now. To break that vicious circle you have to improve economics and
stop population growth at the same time. If you try with just the
economic side of it all the effort will be wasted in one generation.

>And that increased wealth in the developed world is
> directly responsible for their declining growth rates.
>

No. That's not the cause. The problem was that people in the
developed world don't want to expend time or money in kids. People
in the developing world is just concern about having fun. That's
all.

For mankind is not a big deal, though. If a group of people don't
want to have descendency, other group will replace it sooner or
later. Which group will be? Perhaps the Chineses. Perhaps the
Indians. Perhaps the Muslims. or the Africans. But somebody else
will take the control and mankind will continue like if anything has
happened.

Regards,

Omar Vega

From: Omar E. Vega oevega@...

> If population growth was the primary cause of poverty,

> "I am not talking about population SIZE but population
Growth. Every time it grows the per capita income declines. It is
just impossible to overcome poverty without having fast development
and slowing down population growth at once. Otherwise all the
efforts are in vain.

It seems that economies were growing in South Korea and Japan along with their populations in the 60's and 70's. Currently Vietnam's economy is growing rapidly and so is its population.

I agree with the obvious: if a population grows faster than the economy, the net per capita income drops. It should be mentioned that in a stable society, starting with low incomes, it is possible to have rapid economic growth. The key for each of the three examples above was: education, international trade, stable government, laws that protect private property and policies encourage investment.

> This is the zero-sum view of economics. There's lots of contrary evidence against that view.
>
>"Well. That's theory. I have seen the practical side of it at work in Latin America."

.... stable government, laws protecting private property and policies encouraging investment:
Didn't Chile experience good economic growth when it had the above? I don't have any statistics in mind, but I believed it was one of the healthier economies of Latin America.

Now there is a new type of leader in Chile...we'll see what happens next....

.... stable government, laws protecting private property and policies encouraging investment:
These have been the primary barriers to long term growth in Latin America. Populist politics have done a lot of economic harm. I am sure you can think of plenty of examples, but the results have tended to destroy savings of the middle class, scare foreign investors away, and, oddly, still protect the wealthy.
As many people know, in 1900 Buenos Aires was known as the Paris of the Americas. It was considered a better place to live than New York at that time (maybe it still is). In the last hundred years, few would argue that the government of Arginitina was well managed.

Healthy economic comes to countries with good environments for economic growth.
Note what China has done by slowly opening up since about 1990. Their laws are not really fair, but most people are not concerned about stability of policy.

Southeast Asia should not be unique. There is nothing inherent to Latin America that would prevent economic growth.

>"The problem was that people in the developed world don't want to expend time or money in kids. People
in the developing world is just concern about having fun."

A bigger cause could be the automobile. With mobility, people can become detached. The sense of community is reduced. With more flexibility in the labor force, companies are more faster in hiring and firing. This generates uncertainty and insecurity in a population. People get married at a later age. Women become hesitent to have children if they don't have confidence in stability of their husband or their own jobs.

It is not necessarily all about having fun.

From: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Omar E. Vega

> Many countries have corruption (Think in Italy, Japan and Mexico!)
> and does not mean they have hunger.

Funny, I had never before heard anyone talk about Italy or Japan as
having particularly bad corruption problems. Of course Mexico's
problems are sufficiently bad that the government can think of no better
solution than to encourage the poor to leave, so they can become
somebody else's problem.

> And also, many countries have had wars and they did not trigger mass
hunger either.

No, I wasn't trying to argue that wars inevitably create hunger (though
I think they frequently do). I was speaking of hunger used deliberately
as a weapon of war.

> That does not explain it at all.

No, by no means all. But far too much.

> That may be. But look at China. A communist country, at least in
theory.

China's rapid economic growth is happening despite their communism, not
because of it. If they hadn't begun opening their economy to the
capitalist West (and essentially playing the game by capitalist rules),
they wouldn't be experiencing the economic growth they currently are.
And no, I wouldn't primarily attribute their economic improvement to
their draconian population control measures.

> Yes it is. I am not talking about population SIZE but population
> Growth. Every time it grows the per capita income declines.

Again, this is the zero-sum view of economics.

> Singapore does not have a population growth crisis at all.

Maybe I'd better be cautious here; I'm probably lecturing outside my
areas of deep knowledge. I guess I was thinking about people remarking
how crowded Singapore is.

> Just getting more people does not improve anything. More people has
> to be matched with economical development. Otherwise is a disaster.

No, I wasn't arguing that more people is the key to economic
development. I was merely denying that more people is the primary cause
of poverty.

> No. That's not the cause. The problem was that people in the
> developed world don't want to expend time or money in kids. People
> in the developing world is just concern about having fun. That's
> all.

You're talking about their attitude toward it, but I think their
attitude is largely a result of their affluence.

I don't think 3rd world population growth rates are primarily because
they are "just concerned about having fun." I think it's because 3rd
world cultures are primarily agrarian ones with no economic safety net
for the elderly. More children means more help on the farm, and more
security in your declining years.

Regards,

Mike Combs

Hi Matt,

I agree in most of what you said. I will just clarify specific
points.

> I agree with the obvious: if a population grows faster than the
>economy, the net per capita income drops. It should be mentioned
>that in a stable society, starting with low incomes, it is possible
>to have rapid economic growth. The key for each of the three
>examples above was: education, international trade, stable
>government, laws that protect private property and policies
>encourage investment.
>
> > This is the zero-sum view of economics. There's lots of
contrary evidence against that view.
> >
> >"Well. That's theory. I have seen the practical side of it at
work in Latin America."
>
> .... stable government, laws protecting private property and
>policies encouraging investment:
> Didn't Chile experience good economic growth when it had the
>above? I don't have any statistics in mind, but I believed it was
>one of the healthier economies of Latin America.
>
> Now there is a new type of leader in Chile...we'll see what
>happens next....
>

It still is. Chile is growing quite fast by international standards.
Slower than Asia but a lot more speedy than the developing world.

> .... stable government, laws protecting private property and
>policies encouraging investment:

Right!

> These have been the primary barriers to long term growth in Latin
>America. Populist politics have done a lot of economic harm. I am
>sure you can think of plenty of examples, but the results have
>tended to destroy savings of the middle class, scare foreign
>investors away, and, oddly, still protect the wealthy.

Certainly.

> As many people know, in 1900 Buenos Aires was known as the Paris
>of the Americas. It was considered a better place to live than New
>York at that time (maybe it still is). In the last hundred years,
>few would argue that the government of Arginitina was well managed.

Well, Argentina is still a great place, even all the problems it has.
Argentina is not as rich as the developing world but in many aspects
is already a developed nation. A lot richer than Chile.

>
> Healthy economic comes to countries with good environments for
>economic growth.
> Note what China has done by slowly opening up since about 1990.
>Their laws are not really fair, but most people are not concerned
>about stability of policy.
>
> Southeast Asia should not be unique. There is nothing inherent to
>Latin America that would prevent economic growth.

Many countries in Latin America ARE growing fast. Development is not
even though. Countries like Guatemala, Cuba, Bolivia and Venezuela
are in the team of the poorest ones, while others like Costa Rica,
Brazil, Chile and Argentina are developing. However, the world pay a
lot more attention to a Chavez or a Castro than to the success
stories.

> A bigger cause could be the automobile. With mobility, people can
>become detached. The sense of community is reduced. With more
>flexibility in the labor force, companies are more faster in hiring
>and firing. This generates uncertainty and insecurity in a
>population. People get married at a later age. Women become
>hesitent to have children if they don't have confidence in
>stability of their husband or their own jobs.

Could it be cities instead of automobiles? As far as I know, cities
have always had less growth than the people of the countryside. The
difference is today most people live in cities instead of the
countryside. That's the reality in the Western World, Latin America,
East Asia, and now it is becomming real in India. Africa is just
making the early transition to cities by now. Perhaps that's the
problem.

Regards,

Omar Vega

Hi Mike

>
> Funny, I had never before heard anyone talk about Italy or Japan as
> having particularly bad corruption problems.

Italian politics is dirty, I tell you. And don't forget Mafia. And
in Japan the corruption networks are widespread. The point is these
asian fellows known how to keep a good image.

> Of course Mexico's
> problems are sufficiently bad that the government can think of no
> better
> solution than to encourage the poor to leave, so they can become
> somebody else's problem.
>

Mexico has almost collapsed. However, people is having less kids
these times, so there is hope in the long term.
However, if Americans want less Mexican immigration the solution is
quite simple. Encourage investment in Mexico so people don't have to
leave.

> No, I wasn't trying to argue that wars inevitably create hunger
>(though
> I think they frequently do). I was speaking of hunger used
>deliberately
> as a weapon of war.

That has happened in Ethiopia, but does not seem to be the grobal
picture of Africa.

> China's rapid economic growth is happening despite their
>communism, not
> because of it. If they hadn't begun opening their economy to the
> capitalist West (and essentially playing the game by capitalist
>rules),
> they wouldn't be experiencing the economic growth they currently
>are.
> And no, I wouldn't primarily attribute their economic improvement
>to
> their draconian population control measures.

Agree!

> > Just getting more people does not improve anything. More people
>>has
> > to be matched with economical development. Otherwise is a
>>disaster.
>
> No, I wasn't arguing that more people is the key to economic
> development. I was merely denying that more people is the primary
> cause
> of poverty.
>

Yes. There must be a balance between people and resources.

> You're talking about their attitude toward it, but I think their
> attitude is largely a result of their affluence.
>
> I don't think 3rd world population growth rates are primarily
>because
> they are "just concerned about having fun." I think it's because
>3rd
> world cultures are primarily agrarian ones with no economic safety
>net
> for the elderly. More children means more help on the farm, and
>more
> security in your declining years.

Agree. The agrarian way of living is important in determining the
SIZE of the family. But that's just the beginning of the issue.

Now, the decision of having or not at least one kid is another
matter.

There are people like the East Asians and the Latinos that believe
they got the DUTY to preserve life. The idea goes as follows: you
receive the gift of life from your parents and you owe to them, the
society, and sometimes even to God, your own life. So you pay it
back having a family. It is not necesary you have a family of 15
kids, but just a couple is enough. After all, the purpose of life is
to defeat death, and sooner or later decline and death get us all.
And we defeat death having descendents. (the fountain of the
ethernal youth is just fantasy)

It seems to me the developed world has lost that myth already. A
myth that preserves life. It is lost perhaps forever. And perhaps is
too late by now to recover it.

That's just phylosophy, you know.

Regards,

Omar Vega

--- In spacesettlers, "Omar E. Vega" wrote:

> There are people like the East Asians and the Latinos that believe
> they got the DUTY to preserve life. The idea goes as follows: you
> receive the gift of life from your parents and you owe to them, the
> society, and sometimes even to God, your own life. So you pay it
> back having a family. It is not necesary you have a family of 15
> kids, but just a couple is enough.

I'm perfectly happy to see this "let's do it for our country (or God)"
attitude go by the wayside.

> After all, the purpose of life is to defeat death, and sooner or
> later decline and death get us all.

For now.

> And we defeat death having descendents. (the fountain of the
> ethernal youth is just fantasy)

For now.
Have any of us brought up the effects of increased longevity? Keep in
mind that, in those high-population-growth 3rd-world countries, the
life expectancy is not very high.

> It seems to me the developed world has lost that myth already. A
> myth that preserves life. It is lost perhaps forever. And perhaps is
> too late by now to recover it.

I'm always a bit put off when somebody talks about the importance of
people buying into myths. There is always, stated or unstated, the
idea that "Well, *I* don't need to believe this stuff, but it's best
if the regular folk do."

Hi,

> I'm perfectly happy to see this "let's do it for our country (or
> attitude go by the wayside.
>

It's your right. However if everyone thinks the same, both your
country and your God will not remain alive for long.

> > After all, the purpose of life is to defeat death, and sooner or
> > later decline and death get us all.
>
> For now.
>

Inmortality? Come on! Do you really believe on that? Not even Walt
Disney succeeded on that :)

> > And we defeat death having descendents. (the fountain of the
> > ethernal youth is just fantasy)
>
> For now.
> Have any of us brought up the effects of increased longevity?

Just retarding death does not avoid it. How long it can be posponed?

> > It seems to me the developed world has lost that myth already. A
> > myth that preserves life. It is lost perhaps forever. And
>>perhaps is
> > too late by now to recover it.
>
> I'm always a bit put off when somebody talks about the importance
> of
> people buying into myths.

Right. You think Ancient people was a bunch of idiots because
believed in myths. Have you ever though that perhaps is the modern
society mentality which is wrong in many points?

In ecology, for instance, Native Americans were a lot smarter that
the positive scientists of the 19th century.

Almost everything is myth. Even modern science will be mythological
a thousand years from now, lol. Remember flogist theory, spontaneus
life, ether and all that stuff.

> There is always, stated or unstated, the
> idea that "Well, *I* don't need to believe this stuff, but it's
> best
> if the regular folk do."
>

Anyways, in my case I do believe myth carry knowledge. Perhaps the
form they are told are not rational by modern terms, but they carry
a bit of truth which is important. Truths that in our arrogancy
of "modern" and "advanced" fellows we don't hear.

Regards,

Omar Vega

--- In spacesettlers, "Omar E. Vega" :

> Hi,

>> I'm perfectly happy to see this "let's do it for our country (or
>> God)" attitude go by the wayside.

> It's your right. However if everyone thinks the same, both your
> country and your God will not remain alive for long.

If everybody thinks that "let's do it for our country (or God)" isn't
a good reason for reproducing, BUT THEY DECIDE THAT SOME OTHER REASON
IS, then my country can last a long time. And if my God isn't big
enough to take care of Himself, then who needs Him?

>>> After all, the purpose of life is to defeat death, and sooner or
>>> later decline and death get us all.

>> For now.

> Inmortality? Come on! Do you really believe on that? Not even Walt
> Disney succeeded on that :)

Well, what do we mean by "immortality?" I'll go for extream
longevity, though.

>>> And we defeat death having descendents. (the fountain of the
>>> ethernal youth is just fantasy)

>> For now.
>> Have any of us brought up the effects of increased longevity?

> Just retarding death does not avoid it. How long it can be posponed?

Long enough. A woman today who decides to put off having children for
a couple of decades may find that she is too old to handle pregnance
and stay in good health. What if she could pursue her career for
fifty years, and have another hundred healthy, fertile years ahead of
her. Note that this assumes a lifetime of less than two hundred
years, which is in no way "immortality."

>>> It seems to me the developed world has lost that myth already. A
>>> myth that preserves life. It is lost perhaps forever. And
>>> perhaps is too late by now to recover it.

>> I'm always a bit put off when somebody talks about the importance
>> of people buying into myths.

> Right. You think Ancient people was a bunch of idiots because
> believed in myths.

Um, I didn't say that.

> Have you ever though that perhaps is the modern society mentality
> which is wrong in many points?

The problem with modern society is that we *still* buy into the
comforting myths.

> In ecology, for instance, Native Americans were a lot smarter that
> the positive scientists of the 19th century.

Yep. But they killed off all the native horses and mammoths before
they got it right. And it took a lot longer than a hundred years.
And the Native Americans were not and are not stupid. But myth is no
substitute for reason. It's just what you use when you don't have
anything better. And for that matter, even myth is oftentimes
impacted by reason. Just not often enough.

> Almost everything is myth. Even modern science will be mythological
> a thousand years from now, lol. Remember flogist theory, spontaneus
> life, ether and all that stuff.

But nobody buys that anymore. Because science is self-correcting,
while myth is not. Thus biological evolution can accomodate the
discovery of DNA, while creationism cannot.

>> There is always, stated or unstated, the idea that "Well, *I* don't
>> need to believe this stuff, but it's best if the regular folk do."

> Anyways, in my case I do believe myth carry knowledge. Perhaps the
> form they are told are not rational by modern terms, but they carry
> a bit of truth which is important. Truths that in our arrogancy
> of "modern" and "advanced" fellows we don't hear.

Yes, myths carry a bit of truth. Myths are an attempt to understand
what is not understood. So a desire to understand "what are those
lights in the sky at night?" becomes "those are the campfires of the
Sky People." As these "campfires" are obseved over time, a lot of
truth is added about what stars can be seen at what time of the year.
These observations become refined enough that you can plan farming
around when this God's star appears and when that Spirit's
constellation no longer rises above the horizon.

None of which changes the fact that the lights in the sky are NOT
campfires. So extract the truth and let the BS fall by the wayside.

Hi Xenophile,

Wow! A long time has passed since we argue about something before.
So let's have fun.

> If everybody thinks that "let's do it for our country (or God)"
>isn't
> a good reason for reproducing, BUT THEY DECIDE THAT SOME OTHER
>REASON
> IS, then my country can last a long time. And if my God isn't big
> enough to take care of Himself, then who needs Him?

Good point. I got the idea that in the U.S. there are more people
who really believe in God than in here. In Latin America quite a lot
of people don't believe in God at all, but just keep the forms and
appariences.

> Well, what do we mean by "immortality?" I'll go for extream
> longevity, though.
>

Extreme longevity? Human body was no design for living more than we
do now. Are you talking about re-engineering it? Sound like B-rate
Sci-Fi to me.

> > Just retarding death does not avoid it. How long it can be
>>posponed?
>
> Long enough. A woman today who decides to put off having children
>for
> a couple of decades may find that she is too old to handle
>pregnance
> and stay in good health. What if she could pursue her career for
> fifty years, and have another hundred healthy, fertile years ahead
>of
> her. Note that this assumes a lifetime of less than two hundred
> years, which is in no way "immortality."

A woman of today, no matter what happens, in fifty years will be
ready to enter into the coffin, in pretty bad conditions and with
Alzhaimer. Besides, she won't have even a grandchild that cries for
her when the old woman died.

Lord, you still believe in medical story tellings? Those are for
kids to believe. Like the "fountain of youth".

> The problem with modern society is that we *still* buy into the
> comforting myths.
>
> > In ecology, for instance, Native Americans were a lot smarter
that
> > the positive scientists of the 19th century.
>
> Yep. But they killed off all the native horses and mammoths before
> they got it right. And it took a lot longer than a hundred years.
> And the Native Americans were not and are not stupid. But myth is
> no substitute for reason.

I know Natives were intelligent people. I live in the Andes, in
ancient Inca lands. So I have the evidence first hand.
Now, one can't compare myths with science in the same way you can't
compare poetry with narrative. Myths are symbols, poems, dreams.
Expressions of the subjective part of our minds which
carry "meaning" not "objective" truths. That does not mean a myth
could not convey realities.

Let me show an example of the way a myth codify real things.
There is a native myth about two giant serpents that produce major
earthquakes in my country. Rational people could say that's just
another myth. Well, I saw those serpents in a major earthquake in
1985. How come? Quite symple. The ground form waves in the exact
pattern of a giant serpent. If I had not seen that phenomen myself I
wouldn't believed.

Conclusion: myths "encode" truths that only some people could see.

>It's just what you use when you don't have
> anything better. And for that matter, even myth is oftentimes
> impacted by reason. Just not often enough.
>

There is the idea that the rationalistic though is better. Well, it
is better for technical things. However, to see the big picture is
necesary to use both halves of the brain, not only one.

Let imagine the father of your best friend dies. What is better to
say to your friend:

(a) Don't worry, fellow. Take it easy. He was going to died anyways.
He has cancer, you know. He just stopped suffering.

(b) By now your dad is resting in the peace of God. The creator
loves us all and he will take care of the soul of a good man like
him. Let's pray for the well being of his ethernal spirit.

Choose.

>
> But nobody buys that anymore. Because science is self-correcting,
> while myth is not. Thus biological evolution can accomodate the
> discovery of DNA, while creationism cannot.

Well, to be a creationist these days people have to be really
ignorant. Catholics, for instance, are not creationists but follow
Pierre Theilhard de Cardin, so myths also evolve. Otherwise
religions would not remain alive for too long.

>
> Yes, myths carry a bit of truth. Myths are an attempt to
>understand
> what is not understood. So a desire to understand "what are those
> lights in the sky at night?" becomes "those are the campfires of
>the
> Sky People." As these "campfires" are obseved over time, a lot of
> truth is added about what stars can be seen at what time of the
>year.
> These observations become refined enough that you can plan farming
> around when this God's star appears and when that Spirit's
> constellation no longer rises above the horizon.
>
> None of which changes the fact that the lights in the sky are NOT
> campfires. So extract the truth and let the BS fall by the
>wayside.
>

If the only mission of myths were to anticipate science then their
importance would be very minor. Myths are symbols; psicological
tools, healing tools, not just user manuals. No. Myths goes beyond
that. Myths are models of the world that explain the "why" and not
only the "how".

There are many things in life that are not rational and not
provable. Truths that are not scientific by ANY means.
For example, the ethics and morals of society. Rules like:

Not to kill, not to rob, love your country, respect women, etc.

Are all rooted in social CONVENTIONS and explained by myths. If you
believe in democracy, justice, law and any other of other abstract
terms you are believing in a myth (Not that they are false but can't
be proved by science; you have to accept them like they are)

Brain has two sides. "The creator" (so to speak) invented them
because we need both of them. For example in psicology. As an
example, learn to read Tarot. You will be surprised how easy is to
read the minds of ladies, which has "practical" advantages. No myth

(is not necessary you believe Tarot is truth, but just to know how
to read it :))

Regards,

Omar Vega

--- In spacesettlers, "Omar E. Vega" wrote:

> Hi Xenophile,
>
> Wow! A long time has passed since we argue about something before.
> So let's have fun.

That's what it's all about. :)

>> If everybody thinks that "let's do it for our country (or God)"
>> isn't a good reason for reproducing, BUT THEY DECIDE THAT SOME
>> OTHER REASON IS, then my country can last a long time. And if my
>> God isn't big enough to take care of Himself, then who needs Him?

> Good point. I got the idea that in the U.S. there are more people
> who really believe in God than in here. In Latin America quite a lot
> of people don't believe in God at all, but just keep the forms and
> appariences.

Hey, a lot of people think I'm weird because I see a boatload of
Christian allegory in the anime _Shin Cutey Honey_. Yes, Cutey Honey:
the busty android with the exploding clothes.

>> Well, what do we mean by "immortality?" I'll go for extream
>> longevity, though.

> Extreme longevity? Human body was no design for living more than we
> do now.

Curent life *span* is about 123 years. Life *expectancy* is close to
80 years. Life expectancy used to be 48 years. Surely you will
concede that life *expectancy* can be increased, as it has been in the
past. And mice have had their lives extended by up to 30%. Don't
assume that what *has not yet* been done *can never be done.*

> Are you talking about re-engineering it? Sound like B-rate Sci-Fi to
> me.

No need for that at first, but yeah, eventually changes made to the
human body. B-rate Sci-Fi? Well, artificial worlds in space with
millions of people living in them sounds pretty far out too, but I
don't have any problem buying that, because it can be shown to be
plausible.

>>> Just retarding death does not avoid it. How long it can be
>>> posponed?

>> Long enough. A woman today who decides to put off having children
>> for a couple of decades may find that she is too old to handle
>> pregnance and stay in good health. What if she could pursue her
>> career for fifty years, and have another hundred healthy, fertile
>> years ahead of her. Note that this assumes a lifetime of less than
>> two hundred years, which is in no way "immortality."

> A woman of today, no matter what happens, in fifty years will be
> ready to enter into the coffin, in pretty bad conditions and with
> Alzhaimer.

She may die at 114 without Alzheimer's. Not everybody gets it. And
that's without any further medical advances. Does anybody think that
everything than can be discovered in medicine has been?

> Besides, she won't have even a grandchild that cries for her when
> the old woman died.

She will if she has a child at 45, even if that child also waits until
she is 45 to have children of her own. Or, if she lives to 114, even
if she has that child at 54 and that child puts off having children
until she is 54 herself. Women that old *have* had children, though
it is rare.

> Lord, you still believe in medical story tellings? Those are for
> kids to believe. Like the "fountain of youth".

Or like "let's all go live in the sky where we can all fly like
Superman." Aging is an engineering problem, and engineering problems
can be solved.

>> The problem with modern society is that we *still* buy into the
>> comforting myths.

>>> In ecology, for instance, Native Americans were a lot smarter
>>> that the positive scientists of the 19th century.

>> Yep. But they killed off all the native horses and mammoths before
>> they got it right. And it took a lot longer than a hundred years.
>> And the Native Americans were not and are not stupid. But myth is
>> no substitute for reason.

> I know Natives were intelligent people. I live in the Andes, in
> ancient Inca lands. So I have the evidence first hand.

Incas. An excellent example of an intellegent people. And yes, they
chanted and prayed, but the buildings stood up because of the way the
stones were put together.

> Now, one can't compare myths with science in the same way you can't
> compare poetry with narrative. Myths are symbols, poems, dreams.
> Expressions of the subjective part of our minds which carry
> "meaning" not "objective" truths. That does not mean a myth could
> not convey realities.

We might not be talking about the same thing when we say "myth." This
would mean that we are talking past each other.

> Let me show an example of the way a myth codify real things.
> There is a native myth about two giant serpents that produce major
> earthquakes in my country. Rational people could say that's just
> another myth. Well, I saw those serpents in a major earthquake in
> 1985. How come? Quite symple. The ground form waves in the exact
> pattern of a giant serpent. If I had not seen that phenomen myself I
> wouldn't believed.
>
> Conclusion: myths "encode" truths that only some people could see.

Conclusion: myths begin as explanations of observed phenomine, just
like scientific theories. But as time goes on these myths become
tradition, locked in place, and are hard to replace with better
explanations. Science attempts to fix this, not always successfully,
since scientists are human.

>> It's just what you use when you don't have anything better. And
>> for that matter, even myth is oftentimes impacted by reason. Just
>> not often enough.

> There is the idea that the rationalistic though is better. Well, it
> is better for technical things. However, to see the big picture is
> necesary to use both halves of the brain, not only one.

OK. But which side of the brain is the one that believes in things
just because it feels good? And is that a good thing, or is it a
defect in human nature?

> Let imagine the father of your best friend dies. What is better to
> say to your friend:
>
> (a) Don't worry, fellow. Take it easy. He was going to died anyways.
> He has cancer, you know. He just stopped suffering.
>
> (b) By now your dad is resting in the peace of God. The creator
> loves us all and he will take care of the soul of a good man like
> him. Let's pray for the well being of his ethernal spirit.
>
> Choose.

This is a perfect example. FAITH gives my friend comfort when his
father dies of cancer. Sufficient SCIENCE would have saved his
father's life. Since we don't yet have that level of science (but
there is impressive work being done), we say the comforting things,
and comfort ourselves with faith.

(a) is true, whether or not there is a God, a soul, or a Heaven.

(b) may well be true, and is a comforting thing to believe. And as
long as comfort is all that can be offered, it should be.

But now you tell me. Would this friend rather:
(a) be told that his father is with God in Heaven, or
(b) have his father with him, cancer-free, in this life?

This is getting long. I'll finish in another post.

Omar E. Vega wrote:

*If Indian starts to develop
strongly it will be because it stopped its (population) growth.*

Agree with you totally. But I don't think our bureaucrats and politicians
realize it. Our population has increased from less than 200 million to 1.2
billion over 100 years. A six fold increase! And it is expected to stabilize
(at our present level of apathy) at about 1.6 billion. An eight fold
increase. Just callous indifference, nothing more.

And another interesting fact, if you google any country in the world you
will discover its population immediately, but not India's. We like to keep
our heads in the sand : - )

Economic pundits waste a lot of time and energy analyzing how and why a
country is surging ahead (after all they get their bread and butter from
such analysis). The simple answer to China's phenominal growth is, if you
have just one child to support, it is unlikely that that child will be
undernourished or that the parents will be unable to educate that child.

Regards
Selvaraj

From: "Omar E. Vega"

> From: Omar E. Vega
> Extreme longevity? Human body was no design for living more than we
> do now. Are you talking about re-engineering it? Sound like B-rate
> Sci-Fi to me.

Please go and join the group of people over there who said space travel,
heavier than air flight, radio, the lightbulb, the printing press and
(probably) the wheel were all either impossible or a waste of time. :P

> A woman of today, no matter what happens, in fifty years will be
> ready to enter into the coffin, in pretty bad conditions and with
> Alzhaimer. Besides, she won't have even a grandchild that cries for
> her when the old woman died.

This is not true. It's not 'inevitable' she will enter the coffin in fifty
years - especially if she goes under a bus tomorrow. At present there are
very big gaps in our understanding of how our bodies work. There is a good
chance of a significant break through of some kind in either extending or
improving human life over the next fifty years. If not for today's
generation, then probably starting in the next few generations.

> Conclusion: myths "encode" truths that only some people could see.

Possible comparable to the modern 'myth' that describes an atom as spherical
electrons orbiting spherical protons and neutrons. It doesn't actually work
that way, but it's simple enough for non-scientists and children to
understand, and paves the way for the next step.

> There is the idea that the rationalistic though is better.

It's usually better for decision making. Rationally, killing children does
not make it rain, and torturing prisoners of war does not garantee victory
next time. Methinks the ancient incas were using a little too much of the
other side of the brain. ;)

> Let imagine the father of your best friend dies. What is better to
> say to your friend:
>
> (a) Don't worry, fellow. Take it easy. He was going to died anyways.
> He has cancer, you know. He just stopped suffering.
>
> (b) By now your dad is resting in the peace of God. The creator
> loves us all and he will take care of the soul of a good man like
> him. Let's pray for the well being of his ethernal spirit.
>
> Choose.

Rationally, if he's agnostic, then (B) will make things worse. However you
choose (a/b/both) you are making a rational decision based upon what you
know of your friend. This is an example of why giving uncaring *advice* is
usually not a good thing.

> > None of which changes the fact that the lights in the sky are NOT
> > campfires. So extract the truth and let the BS fall by the
> >wayside.
> >
> If the only mission of myths were to anticipate science then their
> importance would be very minor.

Actually in this case I think the main purpose of the myth is to proceed a
more accurate way of record keeping. Until you can write something down
permanantly, giving each important star a story is the best way to ensure it
is not forgotten.

> Myths are symbols; psicological
> tools, healing tools, not just user manuals. No. Myths goes beyond
> that. Myths are models of the world that explain the "why" and not
> only the "how".

How would this apply to the Loch Ness Monster, UFOs or Bigfoot?

> There are many things in life that are not rational and not
> provable. Truths that are not scientific by ANY means.

Science is a tool to test ideas about the world. It can and has been applied
to complex systems like life, buildings and society. Rationally, we do the
things you mention because doing them (and everyone else doing them)
benefits us and/or our children. Please do not declare things unscientific
merely because you are not familiar with the theories.

John

On 01/06/06, Omar E. Vega wrote:
> Corruption does not explain everything. Africa is a huge continent.
> However, the land is not as fertile as the Americas, and large part
> of Africa is desert. They got lot of troubles with the lack of
> water, for instance.

Africa has lots of problems:

a) it's a north-south continent, whereas Europe and America are
east-west continents.

b) diseases like malaria are endemic

c) water problems

d) lack of natural foodstuffs relating to a)

The first problem is the worst. What that means is that any foodstuffs
or domesticated animals that are produced at one latitude can't be
spread far North-south. That makes living there much harder, new foods
have to be produced *everywhere* throughout the continent. Developing
foods is very hard. So the people living there have to make do with
second best, and are condemned to poverty.

It's when you have lots of excess produce that capitalism can start
up. In Africa they don't have much excess.

You should read 'Gun, germs and steel' by Jared Diamond. He goes
through it in a whole heap of detail.

> The problem with Africa is very simple. A population can't grow in
> an exponential rate forever. Population growth is what has kept
> Africa in poverty and is getting worst as times goes by. If Africa
> stop population growth the economy will improves fast.

The population growth is a function of poor infant mortality- if they
don't have a high growth rate they die out.

> Omar Vega

--
-Ian Woollard

"Gravity is just a theory. We shouldn't be teaching it to children as
if were fact."
"The NSA would like to remind everyone to call their mothers this
Sunday. They need to calibrate their system."

From: Ian Woollard ian.woollard@...

>Africa has lots of problems:

> a) it's a north-south continent, whereas Europe and America are
east-west continents.
> b) diseases like malaria are endemic
> c) water problems
> d) lack of natural foodstuffs relating to a)

>The first problem is the worst. What that means is that any foodstuffs
or domesticated animals that are produced at one latitude can't be
spread far North-south.
...
>You should read 'Gun, germs and steel' by Jared Diamond. He goes
through it in a whole heap of detail.

An excellent book. It describes how human societies develop. He views civilizations as a product of their environments and interactions with other human societies. He goes much further in describing how plants, raw materials, domestated animals, weather, terrain shaped human development. Some people might consider the book redundant in parts, but I enjoyed it.

Hi,

>
> Omar E. Vega wrote:
>
> *If Indian starts to develop
> strongly it will be because it stopped its (population) growth.*
>
> Agree with you totally. But I don't think our bureaucrats and
politicians
> realize it. Our population has increased from less than 200
million to 1.2
> billion over 100 years. A six fold increase! And it is expected to
stabilize
> (at our present level of apathy) at about 1.6 billion. An eight
fold
> increase. Just callous indifference, nothing more.
>
> And another interesting fact, if you google any country in the
world you
> will discover its population immediately, but not India's. We like
to keep
> our heads in the sand : - )
>
> Economic pundits waste a lot of time and energy analyzing how and
why a
> country is surging ahead (after all they get their bread and
butter from
> such analysis). The simple answer to China's phenominal growth is,
if you
> have just one child to support, it is unlikely that that child
will be
> undernourished or that the parents will be unable to educate that
child.
>
> Regards
> Selvaraj
>

Totally agree!!

China has a booming economy because stopped population growth. That
was the trick. Indian could follow. I believe is going in the right
path. For instance do you know the percentage of India's population
which lives in cities? Is the educational level growing? Is people
getting a little bit ambitious these days? If so, those are the
early syntoms something is changing.

A nation where so many people loves math and play good chess
shouldn't be poor and won't be poor forever.

Regards,

Omar Vega

Hi,

>
> You should read 'Gun, germs and steel' by Jared Diamond. He goes
> through it in a whole heap of detail.
>

I read it. It's an excelent book. It explain very clear that there
are not genetically superior or inferior peoples but that much of
the development was based in chance and environmental conditions. I
agree.

> > The problem with Africa is very simple. A population can't grow
> > in an exponential rate forever. Population growth is what has
> > kept Africa in poverty and is getting worst as times goes by. If
> >Africa
> > stop population growth the economy will improves fast.
>
> The population growth is a function of poor infant mortality- if
>they
> don't have a high growth rate they die out.
>

Totally the opposite. In the past, Subsaharian Africa, like most of
the other tribal peoples around, had lots of childrens for most of
the time and just a few survived. That was the way things were
around the world some centuries ago, even in Europe.

The problems started in Africa when, thanks to western medicine, the
infant mortality declined sharply without a matching family planning
program that preserved the population balance. At that point the
population skyrocket.

However, people is intelligent everywhere and at these times
Africans are starting to realize the excess of childrens is one of
the most important origins of all their problems.

Regards,

Omar Vega

Hi,

>
> Please go and join the group of people over there who said space
>travel,
> heavier than air flight, radio, the lightbulb, the printing press
>and
> (probably) the wheel were all either impossible or a waste of
>time.

Do you see? You believe in myths. "The fountain of the ethernal
youth". What's next : "El dorado"?

> This is not true. It's not 'inevitable' she will enter the coffin
>in fifty
> years - especially if she goes under a bus tomorrow. At present
>there are
> very big gaps in our understanding of how our bodies work. There
>is a good
> chance of a significant break through of some kind in either
>extending or
> improving human life over the next fifty years. If not for today's
> generation, then probably starting in the next few generations.
>

We don't need to convert the world in a playground for senior
citizens. No, old people should go to the other side and left room
for new generations.

Imagine that a dictator like Stalin, Mao or Castro could live 200
years easily. No way!!!!

Thanks God the myth of the ethernal youth is so unlikely to be
reached like the perpetual motion machine.

>
> Possible comparable to the modern 'myth' that describes an atom as
>spherical
> electrons orbiting spherical protons and neutrons. It doesn't
>actually work
> that way, but it's simple enough for non-scientists and children to
> understand, and paves the way for the next step.

Yes. But I believe today's Quantum Mechanics is just another of
those "modern myths" that will be replaced by better theories in the
future.

> It's usually better for decision making. Rationally, killing
> children does
> not make it rain, and torturing prisoners of war does not garantee
> victory
> next time. Methinks the ancient incas were using a little too much
> of the
> other side of the brain. ;)
>

Don't you know that many people died because of the eugenics
measures impossed by hitler, based in the SCIENTIFIC ideas of Darwin?
Don't you know SCIENCE put us at the edge of atomic extinction?
If we put crimes in the balance, at least Incas killed people
because of their innocence. Not for the pleasure like Romans did, or
hate like when Christians killed witches, or justice like the French
revolution did with the guillotine. No, Incas were just doing what
the believed it was a dutty with their mother, the land.

> > > None of which changes the fact that the lights in the sky are
>NOT
> > > campfires. So extract the truth and let the BS fall by the
> > >wayside.
> > >

Truth is a matter of degrees. Nobody has it. If not, next time you
talk with a scientist do not ask him HOW by WHY.

> Actually in this case I think the main purpose of the myth is to ?
> proceed a
> more accurate way of record keeping. Until you can write something
> down
> permanantly, giving each important star a story is the best way to
> ensure it
> is not forgotten.
>

Certainly!

Myths are symbols. They are ways to preserve the knowledge and keep
it from long times. Myths are easy to memorize like poetry, songs
and rythuals.

>
> How would this apply to the Loch Ness Monster, UFOs or Bigfoot?
>

Well, myths are also these

The galactic empires,
The man on mars,
The space cities of the future.
etc.

Those myths drive people to do things.

> Science is a tool to test ideas about the world. It can and has >
> been applied
> to complex systems like life, buildings and society. Rationally, >
> we do the
> things you mention because doing them (and everyone else doing > >
> them)
> benefits us and/or our children. Please do not declare things > >
> unscientific
> merely because you are not familiar with the theories.
>

Well, even scientist are just rational in the surface. To create new
theories scientist usually make use of the other side of the brain.

The classical example is Kekule, who was dreamming on serpents
biting their tales, which is the very ancient symbol called
ouroborus.

Now, those serpents bitting their tails were the molecule of Benzene
he discovered.

Regards,

Omar Vega

> From: Omar E. Vega
> Do you see? You believe in myths. "The fountain of the ethernal
> youth". What's next : "El dorado"?

There is a difference in belieing 'El dorado' exists or did exist, and
believing 'we could build El dorado if we wanted to'. One is faith, the
other is engineering.

> We don't need to convert the world in a playground for senior
> citizens.

Whjo said anything about a playground? If you live to be 200 you won't be
withdraw a meaningful pension at 65. You might be able to take a break at
that age for a few years, but you'll be working longer. Nationally, society
will get a significantly greater return in the money invested in the
education of its citizens.

> No, old people should go to the other side and left room
> for new generations.

Who decides what a 'senior citizen' is? Anyone over 40? There were several
movies made about that. It's a stupid way to run society. Perhaps stupid
people, the disabled and unpopular minorities should also be put up against
a wall and shot to make way for 'more important people'? Which is pretty
much the same thing.

It also assumes a zero sum enviroment. Maybe rich old people (150 year
pension = lots of cash!) will choose to settle on mars? They would easily be
able to afford it.

> Imagine that a dictator like Stalin, Mao or Castro could live 200
> years easily. No way!!!!

Stalin died of a treatable medical condition - because he basically implied
he'd kept killing everyone who treated him. Anti-aging treatments won't
protect you from your own stupidity. If the rest of the world faced the
prospect of having to deal with him for 200 years they might have been much
less willing to.

> Thanks God the myth of the ethernal youth is so unlikely to be
> reached like the perpetual motion machine.

Eternal youth is unreasonable. Nothing lasts for ever. Significantly
extended youth, and life spans in general is not. Humans do not come with a
sell by date.

> > Possible comparable to the modern 'myth' that describes an atom as
> >spherical
> > electrons orbiting spherical protons and neutrons. It doesn't
> >actually work
> > that way, but it's simple enough for non-scientists and children to
> > understand, and paves the way for the next step.
>
> Yes. But I believe today's Quantum Mechanics is just another of
> those "modern myths" that will be replaced by better theories in the
> future.

Quantum mechanics was used to design the computer I'm using to write this
sentence. It is an accurate way to preduict atomic behaviour, not a myth. If
the theory is superceeded it's likely that QM will still be used by computer
makers for the same reason newtons laws are still used by bridge builders.

> Don't you know that many people died because of the eugenics
> measures impossed by hitler, based in the SCIENTIFIC ideas of Darwin?

They were killed because of the unscientific and groundless myths of the
nazi party, which had *absolutely* *nothing* to do with Darwin's
observations of nature.

> Don't you know SCIENCE put us at the edge of atomic extinction?

If you hate or fear 'science' or knowledge, and/or think we should start
burning 'dangerous' books then say so. Again, science is a method used to
observe nature and obtain accurate conclusions. It has never and can never
'do' anything except help advance knowledge. People then apply it to do all
sorts of silly things. Then they blaim science for it because it's an easy
target and they have no desire to find the real culpret.

> If we put crimes in the balance, at least Incas killed people
> because of their innocence. Not for the pleasure like Romans did, or
> hate like when Christians killed witches, or justice like the French
> revolution did with the guillotine. No, Incas were just doing what
> the believed it was a dutty with their mother, the land.

Delete innocence and substitute 'ignorance'. You are assuming a hell of a
lot there about motivation. Given that they are human, and based on the
archeological evidence, it's highly likely they were as 'innocent' as any
other sadistic bunch of thugs.

> > How would this apply to the Loch Ness Monster, UFOs or Bigfoot?
> Well, myths are also these

Ah, so *some* myths are just nonsense then? ;)

> The galactic empires,
> The man on mars,
> The space cities of the future.
> etc.
>
> Those myths drive people to do things.

Star Wars and Star Trek are definately part of contempoary mythology - but
the difference is that no one believes that they are real. I think you're
stretching the definition of 'myth' more than a little to apply it to
blueprints or future planning.

If I intend to shoot up on drugs this friday, rob a bank on saturday, then
visit a working girl on sunday - then you can call that all sorts of things,
including planning, but I wouldn't call it mythology. Save for the fact that
it is completely fictional!

John

Hi,

> There is a difference in belieing 'El dorado' exists or did exist,
> and
> believing 'we could build El dorado if we wanted to'. One is
> faith, the
> other is engineering.

Myth drove Von Braun as well. He and his partner, Walt Disney, made
a lot of specials promoting the idea of the trip to the moon and the
conquest of space during the 50s. I believe that "mythological"
campain was the main driving force that send Americans to space.

> Whjo said anything about a playground? If you live to be 200 you
>won't be
> withdraw a meaningful pension at 65. You might be able to take a
>break at
> that age for a few years, but you'll be working longer.
>Nationally, society
> will get a significantly greater return in the money invested in
>the
> education of its citizens.

Have you never took into consideration that people get tired of
living? Why to preserve walking corpses instead of letting people to
die with dignity when nature say it is time to go?

> Who decides what a 'senior citizen' is? Anyone over 40? There were
>several
> movies made about that. It's a stupid way to run society. Perhaps
>stupid
> people, the disabled and unpopular minorities should also be put
>up against
> a wall and shot to make way for 'more important people'? Which is
>pretty
> much the same thing.

Nobody is thinking in killing people. The point is to allow death to
make its part. People that want to avoid death or pospone it
forever, really don't accept human nature. Death is part of it and
we should accept it.

>
> It also assumes a zero sum enviroment. Maybe rich old people (150
>year
> pension = lots of cash!) will choose to settle on mars? They would
>easily be
> able to afford it.

Oh my God! You read "Red Mars" don't you? Senior citizens conquering
the red planet. What a crap :)
Well, I preffer "Mars" from Ben Bova. I thing the later is more
realistic than the former.

>
> > Thanks God the myth of the ethernal youth is so unlikely to be
> > reached like the perpetual motion machine.
>
> Eternal youth is unreasonable. Nothing lasts for ever.
>Significantly
> extended youth, and life spans in general is not. Humans do not
>come with a
> sell by date.

Well, if you believe "Viagra" is the way of going, perhaps you got a
point. That's funny. Do you know that in Spanish Vi-agra is a short
form of "Happy old ladies" (VIejas AGRAdecidas) :)

Yes, perhaps in the future old fellows will be full of chemicals and
cyborg tech. A Frankestein world, I am afraid.

> Quantum mechanics was used to design the computer I'm using to
>write this
> sentence.

And what? the engineers of the industrial revolutions had very
little education and contributed as well. So what's the point?

>It is an accurate way to preduict atomic behaviour, not a myth.

Accuracy is not all. The geocentric theory of Ptolomey was very
accurate for navigation and it was still false.

> If
> the theory is superceeded it's likely that QM will still be used
> by computer
> makers for the same reason newtons laws are still used by bridge
> builders.

Do you have a crystal ball? In a thousand years from now there is a
good chance both Newton's and QM will be considered nice
approximations but inacurate. Like Lammarck evolutionary theory is
today.

>
> They were killed because of the unscientific and groundless myths
>of the
> nazi party, which had *absolutely* *nothing* to do with Darwin's
> observations of nature.

No. They are related. Remember that the ideas of darwin started with
Malthusian concepts, and that Galton, the founder of Eugenics, was a
cousin of Darwin. Spencer, the creator of "social darwinism", had
the same ideas than Darwin and they influenced each other. Even in
his own book, "Ascent of Man", Darwin talks about "inferior"
and "superior" races. Hitler was just the guy that put into practise
many of the criminal ideas that were boiling in the West because of
Darwinian ideas being applyied to the interpretation of society.
Even today, books like "The bell curve" still make use of those
ideas in the wrong way.

Nobody is saying Darwin's evolution was wrong. I believe it were
their interpretations which were the ones that caused the crimes we
all know.

> >
> > Don't you know SCIENCE put us at the edge of atomic extinction?
> >

> If you hate or fear 'science' or knowledge, and/or think we should
>start
> burning 'dangerous' books then say so.

Nobody fears science or knowledge. However, sometimes I fear certain
scientists. Particularly when they don't follow ethical rules. Yes,
I fear scientists that expose soldiers to radioactivity to see what
happens. I fear scientists that make experiments with small kids in
the concentration camps. And I fear scientists that justify the lack
of concern of big corporation with the environment or the security
of people.

>Again, science is a method used to
> observe nature and obtain accurate conclusions. It has never and
>can never
> 'do' anything except help advance knowledge.

Science is a tool, nothing else. Science is a kitchen recipe.

>People then apply it to do all
> sorts of silly things. Then they blaim science for it because it's
>an easy
> target and they have no desire to find the real culpret.
>

Knowledge is dangerous. The ancients knew that so they teach
knowledge to only certain guys that were ethically prepared.
So only a few knew how to produce poissons, drugs, and even gun
powder (in China). That's the idea behind the myth of the "tree of
knowledge" of Genesis: knowledge is dangerous and has to be treated
with care.

Imagine everyone would know how to make a nuke. Today everyone knows
how to make a conventional bomb and see how much terrorism exist in
the world today.

Knowledge is dangerous. It has to be treated with care.

>
> Delete innocence and substitute 'ignorance'. You are assuming a
>hell of a
> lot there about motivation. Given that they are human, and based
>on the
> archeological evidence, it's highly likely they were as 'innocent'
>as any
> other sadistic bunch of thugs.

I believe you are "ignorant" of the fact the Inca sacrifices were
less common and a lot of less cruel that the Aztec of Anasazi ones.
As the matter of fact, perhaps one of the most common form of Inca
sacrifice was death by freezing. People was let to die in the upper
montains after drunk drugs and alcohol.

They practised those sacrifices to ask for the help of the mother
land. Yes, human sacrifices are superstitions (by today's standard)
that existed in every single culture of the ancient world. But
variation of it still exist in the modern world. We still sacrifice
people for the well being of the community: death penalties,
soldiers killed for the country, policemen killed for the public
order, etc. Even more, many times young fellows just practise human
sacrifices in honor of their own egos, by doing risky sports.

Times change but humans don't.

>
> > > How would this apply to the Loch Ness Monster, UFOs or Bigfoot?
> > Well, myths are also these
>
> Ah, so *some* myths are just nonsense then? ;)
>

Yes. Just like some scientific hypothesis. lol :)

> Star Wars and Star Trek are definately part of contempoary
>mythology - but
> the difference is that no one believes that they are real.

Aha!!!! I got you :)

There are people that BELIEVE those myths are real.

Do you know how many people believe UFOs are real?

Have you hear about "scientology" created in 1952 by the mediocre
science-fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard?

Have you heared about the "Heavens gate"?

Or about JJ Benitez, the Bermuda triangle, Van Danniken?

Yes, there are LOT OF PEOPLE that believe those myths are real!!!

>I think you're
> stretching the definition of 'myth' more than a little to apply it
>to
> blueprints or future planning.
>

Myths are a central part to understand human behavoir and societies.
Is part of the psycology of masses. Read Jung and you could grasp
what is going on.

> If I intend to shoot up on drugs this friday, rob a bank on
>saturday, then
> visit a working girl on sunday - then you can call that all sorts
>of things,
> including planning, but I wouldn't call it mythology. Save for the
>fact that
> it is completely fictional!
>

Myths are not just tales. Myths are symbols, like a flag or a
ritual. Think a little bit about it and you'll realize the world is
plenty of myths. More than we usually think.

Regards,

Omar Vega

--- In spacesettlers, "Omar E. Vega" wrote:

> Have you never took into consideration that people get tired of
> living?

OK. Tell me at what age you want to die.
Look, if people get tired of living (and there is zero evidence that
they will), then they can stop taking whatever longevity treatments
are developed. There. Problem solved.

> Why to preserve walking corpses

Walking corpses? If you stay young, how are you a "walking corpse?"
We're talking about young, vibrant people who happen to have been
young, vibrant people for over a hundred years. Not "walking corpse"
in sight. And who are you to tell people how long they can live?

> instead of letting people to die with dignity

Who is talking about not LETTING people die whenever they see fit?
I'm talking about people not HAVING TO die at some two-digit age that
you seem to think should be imposed on everybody, like it or not.

> when nature say it is time to go?

And exactly when does nature say it is time to go? Nature seemed to
think 40 was old enough, but then we whupped tuburculosis and a few
other things. Now, nature seems to think that 75 or so is time to go.
Now, if we were cure cancer or heart disease, don't you think the
average life expectancy would go up? Should we refuse to do cancer
research because it's "natural" for people to die wasting deaths from
cancer? Should we ban diabetes research because it's "natural" for
people to have diabetes? And if we ever beat diabetes, the life
expectancy goes up.

Nature can blow me. I don't want cancer. I don't want heart disease.
I don't want TB. I don't want somebody trying to tell me how long
I'm allowed to live. If I get tired of living I'll take up skydiving
with cheap parachutes. You don't get to decide that for me.

>> Who decides what a 'senior citizen' is? Anyone over 40? There were
>> several movies made about that. It's a stupid way to run society.
>> Perhaps stupid people, the disabled and unpopular minorities should
>> also be put up against a wall and shot to make way for 'more
>> important people'? Which is pretty much the same thing.

> Nobody is thinking in killing people.

If you withhold medical treatment from somebody who needs it to live,
you kill that person. Just as if you had locked them in a room
without food until they starved to death. So yes, you are talking
about killing people.

> The point is to allow death to make its part. People that want to
> avoid death or pospone it forever, really don't accept human nature.
> Death is part of it and we should accept it.

Bullfeathers! I don't "accept" cancer. I don't "accept" Alzheimer's.
I don't "accept" strokes.
I'm stuck with them, for now. But only until somebody figures out how
to beat them. I don't "accept" smallpox, and am glad to see it gone.
Maybe we should bring back smallpox, because it's "natural" for
people to die of it. Hey, let's bring back polio while we're at it.

> Yes, perhaps in the future old fellows will be full of chemicals and
> cyborg tech. A Frankestein world, I am afraid.

Maybe my grandmother should have the artificial hip joint that allows
her to walk taken out, so she won't be part of a "Frankestein world."
Maybe my girlfriend should have the metal pins that allow *her* to
walk taken out of her ankle, so she won't be part of a "Frankestein
world." Should my friend Tracy refuse to wear glasses? How "natural"
do we need to be to avoid this terrible "Frankestein world?"

Tell me the truth, Mr. Vega: if you were told you had cancer, and were
going to die in a year, and two months later a doctor walks in and
tell you he has a cure, would you tell him to stick it up his ass? Or
would you maybe take the option of extending your life a little?

Hi,

> Tell me the truth, Mr. Vega: if you were told you had cancer, and
Zwere
> going to die in a year, and two months later a doctor walks in and
> tell you he has a cure, would you tell him to stick it up his
ass?

Why not? With the prize of medicine in Chile, perhaps that's the
best option anyways.

>Or
> would you maybe take the option of extending your life a little?
>

No way. Why to extend what is going to come anyways? Think in death:
no taxes, no work, no bosses, no politicians, no humans !!!! Lord,
that's paradise :)

Regards,

Omar Vega

All that Vega is trying to say is that there is a natural cycle we should
try to respect. Having too many old people around is not a very good idea,
since according to nature's plan the young replace the old.

I remember a very qualified person from overseas delivering a lecture in a
conference a long time back. He was smartly dressed, did not seem very old
(very difficult to tell people's age these days, with people dying their
hair), but when he started to talk he performed like a stuck gramophone
record. It was embarrassing to say the least.

It is good to live long, but there comes an age when we must be prepared to
move on.

THE FOUR STAGES OF HINDU LIFE

http://www.hindunet.org/quickintro/hindudharma/hindu_four_stages.htm

Regards
Selvaraj

From: "Xenophile"

--- In spacesettlers, "Omar E. Vega" wrote:

> Have you never took into consideration that people get tired of
> living?

OK. Tell me at what age you want to die.
Look, if people get tired of living (and there is zero evidence that
they will), then they can stop taking whatever longevity treatments
are developed. There. Problem solved.

> Why to preserve walking corpses

Walking corpses? If you stay young, how are you a "walking corpse?"
We're talking about young, vibrant people who happen to have been
young, vibrant people for over a hundred years. Not "walking corpse"
in sight. And who are you to tell people how long they can live?

> instead of letting people to die with dignity

Who is talking about not LETTING people die whenever they see fit?
I'm talking about people not HAVING TO die at some two-digit age that
you seem to think should be imposed on everybody, like it or not.

> when nature say it is time to go?

And exactly when does nature say it is time to go? Nature seemed to
think 40 was old enough, but then we whupped tuburculosis and a few
other things. Now, nature seems to think that 75 or so is time to go.
Now, if we were cure cancer or heart disease, don't you think the
average life expectancy would go up? Should we refuse to do cancer
research because it's "natural" for people to die wasting deaths from
cancer? Should we ban diabetes research because it's "natural" for
people to have diabetes? And if we ever beat diabetes, the life
expectancy goes up.

Nature can blow me. I don't want cancer. I don't want heart disease.
I don't want TB. I don't want somebody trying to tell me how long
I'm allowed to live. If I get tired of living I'll take up skydiving
with cheap parachutes. You don't get to decide that for me.

>> Who decides what a 'senior citizen' is? Anyone over 40? There were
>> several movies made about that. It's a stupid way to run society.
>> Perhaps stupid people, the disabled and unpopular minorities should
>> also be put up against a wall and shot to make way for 'more
>> important people'? Which is pretty much the same thing.

> Nobody is thinking in killing people.

If you withhold medical treatment from somebody who needs it to live,
you kill that person. Just as if you had locked them in a room
without food until they starved to death. So yes, you are talking
about killing people.

> The point is to allow death to make its part. People that want to
> avoid death or pospone it forever, really don't accept human nature.
> Death is part of it and we should accept it.

Bullfeathers! I don't "accept" cancer. I don't "accept" Alzheimer's.
I don't "accept" strokes.
I'm stuck with them, for now. But only until somebody figures out how
to beat them. I don't "accept" smallpox, and am glad to see it gone.
Maybe we should bring back smallpox, because it's "natural" for
people to die of it. Hey, let's bring back polio while we're at it.

> Yes, perhaps in the future old fellows will be full of chemicals and
> cyborg tech. A Frankestein world, I am afraid.

Maybe my grandmother should have the artificial hip joint that allows
her to walk taken out, so she won't be part of a "Frankestein world."
Maybe my girlfriend should have the metal pins that allow *her* to
walk taken out of her ankle, so she won't be part of a "Frankestein
world." Should my friend Tracy refuse to wear glasses? How "natural"
do we need to be to avoid this terrible "Frankestein world?"

Tell me the truth, Mr. Vega: if you were told you had cancer, and were
going to die in a year, and two months later a doctor walks in and
tell you he has a cure, would you tell him to stick it up his ass? Or
would you maybe take the option of extending your life a little?

The "natural cycle" is that people suffer. They become less capable.
They die. To hell with that. I don't want to RESPECT that, I want
to CONQUER it.

I don't settle for the 10 KmPH or less that I can maintain for two
hours via walking; I get in a car, bus, or train (even a bicycle) and
exceed my "natural capabilities." That's more like it.

If I break my leg, I have the doctor set it. I don't rely on the
"natural cycle" that means that I have pain and disablility for the
rest of my life.

I'm sorry to be harsh, but this "buts it's natural for people to
experience " stuff really gets
my goat, and my goat bleats.

let me ask this. are you older than 32. if you are, according the
natural cycle, you should have passed over already. at least
according to the ancient times. in the time before Christ, if a man
made it to 40, he was consider to be ancient. in today's version hes
called a centurion. this is the natural cycle that you are referring
to as something that should be respected.

1)children are born and maybe 1 in 3 will live to be 1 year old. of
these 1 in 3 will live to see 5 years of age.

2)some time between 5 and 10 hes married and starts having children
of or her own. often the females will die in child birth.

3) if they are lucky, by the time they are our of their teens they
will be a grand parent. with any luck by the time they are 25 they
will have great grand kids. the odds are they would not survive long
enough. if they do. the odds it will be closer to 30 before one will
survive.

4) on rare occasions, an elder would live long enough to see a 4th
generation. this one would be considered venerable.

what is really respectable about that. though out history of man, the
life expectancy and there fore the age of marriage has increased.
sufferance has been decreased as more and more things have been done
to improve life.

you complain about an old man sounding like and old, stuck gramophone
record, but at least he had an excuse for it. what about some of the
20 something that sound like stuck Cd's. I say to the neither regions
with dying the way things are. death will come no matter how long you
delay it.

a man should live as long as he wishes, and wish to live as long as
he does. respect the cycle, but dont expect it to stay the same size.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, sraj wrote:
>
> All that Vega is trying to say is that there is a natural cycle we
should
> try to respect. Having too many old people around is not a very
good idea,
> since according to nature's plan the young replace the old.
>
> I remember a very qualified person from overseas delivering a
lecture in a
> conference a long time back. He was smartly dressed, did not seem
very old
> (very difficult to tell people's age these days, with people dying
their
> hair), but when he started to talk he performed like a stuck
gramophone
> record. It was embarrassing to say the least.
>
> It is good to live long, but there comes an age when we must be
prepared to

Hi Selvaraj:

Totally agree!!!

>
> All that Vega is trying to say is that there is a natural cycle we
>should
> try to respect. Having too many old people around is not a very
>good idea,
> since according to nature's plan the young replace the old.
>
> I remember a very qualified person from overseas delivering a
>lecture in a
> conference a long time back. He was smartly dressed, did not seem
>very old
> (very difficult to tell people's age these days, with people dying
>their
> hair), but when he started to talk he performed like a stuck
>gramophone
> record. It was embarrassing to say the least.
>
> It is good to live long, but there comes an age when we must be
prepared to
> move on.
>
> THE FOUR STAGES OF HINDU LIFE
>
http://www.hindunet.org/quickintro/hindudharma/hindu_four_stages.htm
>
> Regards
> Selvaraj
>

Totallly Agree!!!! Life has a cycle of birth, youth, adulthood and
death. That's it.

Regard

Hi,

>
> let me ask this. are you older than 32. if you are, according the
> natural cycle, you should have passed over already. at least
> according to the ancient times. in the time before Christ, if a man
> made it to 40, he was consider to be ancient. in today's version hes
> called a centurion.

Check your history books. In the past existed people that reached the
80 years old and beyond !!! It is not that today people live more than
in the past at all. What happens is that in the past 1 in 100
individuals reach the 80 years old and today perhaps there is 1 in 2.

Medicine has not made people live more, it just has allowed more
people to survive up to the natural limits of life.

But the natural limits are there anyways, waiting for you and me.

Death can't be avoided with cartoons' science.

Regards,

Omar Vega

how many history books do you have from the before christ era. not
many have survived. the closest ive seen is the bible. it does
mention that one of the greats of the bible lived 1400 years. but not
many did that. according to archeologist, most ppl of that era didnt
live past 40

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Omar E. Vega"
>
> Hi,
>
> Check your history books. In the past existed people that reached
the
> 80 years old and beyond !!! It is not that today people live more
than
> in the past at all. What happens is that in the past 1 in 100
> individuals reach the 80 years old and today perhaps there is 1 in
2.