jeskill

I don't know if they're a sign that he's evil, or a psychopath, or a sociopath, but they may be a sign that he's mentally unstable and could benefit from professional help. To answer the OP, I don't think there's such as thing as "an evil person". Perhaps the closest to this would be a sociopath or psychopath, but many people who commit "evil" crimes aren't actually "evil". Rather, they seem to have a history that basically pushes them into that life. For example, people who are abused as children are more likely to commit crimes as adults. Under-education, poverty and a feeling of powerless may make child murders by mothers more likely. And of course, we've all heard about the effects of untreated post-tramautic stress disorder on soldiers ... Isn't it true that when people are under a lot of pressure, they tend to do things that they perhaps wouldn't have done in a more relaxed environment?

It probably isn't fair to blame the US, but ah what the hell. If Canada wasn't so physically close to the US, I bet our health care would be better. (Why, you ask? Perhaps the brain drain of the 90s, when Canadian doctors were moving to the US? Or perhaps we're always so busy arguing that our healthcare is better, we never bother to fight for better healthcare at home? Perhaps when people talk about fixing Canadian healthcare, we talk about making it more like the US instead of making it more like the UK?)

When I see these numbers, I'm not surprised that the US does so poorly in comparison. But I am p.o-ed that Canada is doing so poorly.

(double post) that sounds lovely.

Well, since we're talking about our personal experiences here ... I've had health care in three different countries: Canada (as a Canadian); Turkey (we paid out of pocket for pre-natal and delivery); and now the United States. I found the waiting times and level of care in Canada and the U.S. to be about the same. The only two differences I've found have been that a) doctor trips in the U.S. take a lot longer because I have to wait in line to pay my co-pay at the end and b) in Ontario your choice of doctor is limited by who's available whilst in the US your choice of doctor is limited by your insurance company. Interestingly, I had really good care in Turkey, and it wasn't that expensive. My doctor's office was in the hospital where all the tests were done, he performed the ultrasounds in his office, so it was simple and easy to make decisions. He gave me a flat monthly rate for pre-natal (approx $70) + tests. Don't get me wrong, it wasn't a fancy birth with a private room or whirlpools, but it was a safe birth and the doctor was great at attending to my emotional needs as well as my physical needs. In contrast, I find the system in the US to be more bureaucratic and segregated, and less patient-oriented (as it probably is in Canada). Each doctor has their own little niche and I've found it difficult to talk to my main doctor the day tests results are given. For example, I've had an ongoing problem for about 2 weeks in which I pretty much know what's wrong, and I still have to wait until tomorrow to just meet with my doctor to hear what the options are. With my doctor in Turkey, this would have been taken care of by now. NOTE: I'm not saying that overall, Turkey has a better health care system than the US or Canada. It doesn't. And I know people who've had bad experiences there (mostly doctors pushing c-sections on what could be healthy normal births). I just appreciated the patient-centered care I received, and paying out of pocket there was much less expensive than the insurance premiums I'm paying now.

I'd just like to publicly commend Zapatos for being a good debate/discussion partner. Things got heated (on both sides), but ultimately, things got sorted out and reason prevailed. So refreshing after having many fruitless discussions with ahem, someone else! AFAIK, the bill in question did not force religious institutions to provide contraception. Rather, if these institutions (e.g. Catholic hospitals, schools, etc) felt they could not in good conscience provide contraceptives, this bill allowed people who worked for these institutions to be directly insured for contraceptives by the insurer so that the institution does not participate in the process. Which, yes, is a loophole, but hey, loopholes are used all the time to circumvent religious rules (e.g. getting a non-jew to light the oven on Shabbat, Sharia-compliant loans allowing Muslims to pay a "fee" instead of interest, etc. etc.) Just as a hypothetical, imagine Judy is a Unitarian, so her religious affiliation does not prohibit the use of contraceptives. Now imagine she gets hired at a Catholic university. If the university prohibited her ability to use contraceptives, wouldn't that violate her freedom of religion by forcing her to abide by another religion's rules?

Actually, insurance companies do refuse to pay for the pill even when women need it for medical reasons. In her speech, Sandra Fluke gives a heartbreaking example of this at her university. Listen, I have no problem with guys using Viagra to treat ED. However, I do think it's fair to point out the hypocrisy of the religious right on this issue. The only purpose I can see for Viagra is that it allows men with ED to get an erection. Am I wrong? And unless I'm missing something, the only reason to get an erection is, well, to have sex! (Or masturbate. Whatever floats your goat. Edit: I meant boat. lol.) The reason I think it's pertinent to compare the religious right's non-discussion of Viagra with their tizzy over the pill is because it blatantly shows the double-standard they have concerning women and men. If there were no double standard, then the religious right would also think it's appropriate to limit Viagra to only those who need it for procreation. I agree, but that wasn't my point at all. See above. Question (again showing my ignorance of the male anatomy). Is ED painful? Does it kill men? Or does it just stop them from getting an erection? The reason I think the pill and Viagra are related is because a lack of both seem to just reduce sexual choices. Testicular cancer, on the other hand, sounds incredibly painful and is probably fatal if not treated. I agree that the pill can also be compared to preventative medicine. I know there are studies out there that suggest insurance policies that cover the pill have overall lower costs. My personal opinion -- I just don't think that the religious right cares if it's preventative medicine. OK. I do hope that you recognize #2 was not a policy suggestion, but rather a statement meant to show the hypocrisy of the religious right's position? The reason I directed a rant at you is because you wrote, In subsequent posts, you did state that you do recognize that the double standard exists and that you do hope for a day of more equality, which I appreciate. However, at this point in the conversation, my heuristic mind linked these comments you made to past statements made by other people that were used to silence my concerns about equality of the sexes. As I'm sure you know, many people in developed countries such as Canada or the US believe that feminism is not needed anymore, that there's not a double standard, and that feminists are just whiners with no real reason to complain. Don't get me wrong -- I know that I have it good compared to even my mother's generation, but I also recognize that women's liberation is a very young concept and susceptible to backsliding if those of us who believe in equality aren't vigilant. And right now, there's a lot of backsliding going on, especially as the religious right gains political power. Can you understand why I'd be sensitive to the implied sentiment that I shouldn't have an ax to grind because women are held to a different standard? Is that what you meant to say? Because that's kinda how it was worded.

No way! Sike is totally in urban dictionary, eh. Of course, #2 meaning says: BTW: If ever you see I'ved edited a post, just assume it's grammar or spelling unless otherwise stated.

I always thought a drugstore cowboy was someone who stole prescription meds from drugstores. Geez Louise did I ever get that wrong! I say awesome and cool. Are those words still kosher? My list: rad sike copacetic ( I actually don't know what this means, but we used it a lot in highschool) That's so awesome, dude! That's a beauty! ... I can't think of any others. (Edit for spelling)

From catholic.com: I am bothered that in this day and age, women are still held to a different standard than men when it comes to sex. Why wouldn't I be? And if you're implying that the contraceptive issue is separate from the issue of equal standards -- well, I very much disagree. Contraceptives are the great equalizer: they allow women to control their reproductive rate, thus allowing them to participate in the public sphere, to have careers, to travel, and to (OMG) have political and economic power that they would otherwise not have. Contraceptives have drastically changed the game, and quite frankly, I like that I've been able to see the world, get a higher education degree, and work while still having a long term partner. So please forgive me when I get a bit irate after hearing about potential bills that allow employers to fire employees for being on the pill. It is completely ridiculous that we are expected to act like nuns if we want to work, whilst men can continue to enjoy both.

The church may be cool with erections, but according to the reasoning of Santorum, Limbaugh, and the Catholic Church, sex is about procreation, not recreation. To assume that Viagra is only being used to help men procreate is likely more erroneous than assuming that contraceptives are mostly used to relieve acne and menstrual cramps. Yet, no one puts up a fuss. Because ultimately, no one cares if a guy has sex for fun. Women, on the other hand ..... If Arizona puts a bill through that allows employers to fire women for using contraceptives to have non-procreative sex, then they should also put a bill through that will allow employers to fire men for using Viagra to have non-procreative sex. (Edit: Grammar)

Contraception is sometimes used for medical problems, while Viagra is sometimes used for recreation. In any event, I agree with Moontanman that this has nothing to do with costs, and everything to do with pushing a specific morality. Which is why it is apt to compare the coverage of Viagra and the pill. Viagra helps men have sex. I think it's safe to assume that most people who use Viagra are not having sex with the primary intent to reproduce. Contraception helps women have sex without the primary intent to reproduce. Why is one vilified and the other is not?

I think the religious right has gone too far, has angered a lot of women and (I hope) has galvanized women to vote against the Republicans. And while I'm appalled at what comes out of the mouths of Santorum, Limbaugh, and others, I'm also secretly ecstatic because women's issues are ACTUALLY being talked about in the United States! Yeah! I've been arguing the contraceptive issue with a Libertarian, and his argument is that "he shouldn't have to pay for it if he's not going to use it". I made a number of counter-arguments, including the well-discussed point that Viagra is covered. His response was that "Viagra shouldn't be covered either". OK, fine. THEN WHY AREN'T YOU UP IN ARMS ABOUT IT? What's kind of funny, is that in Ontario, neither contraceptives nor Viagra are covered by the universal health plan. And I don't think I have a problem with that, because it is more fair. That, and when you factor in the ridiculous U.S. copays, contraceptives probably cost the same in both countries.

For all those who fear the demise of humans caused by what they perceive is exponential population growth, a recent opinion article in the New York Times argues that the economic outlook will be bleak due to an aging population and lack of baby-making. The statistics he throws out are interesting. However, I'm starting to get annoyed by opinion articles that argue from only one perspective. This article is arguing purely from an economic perspective, and so doesn't take into consideration the practical effect on the environment of a "long term growing work force". Likewise, I've find arguments focusing on solely the environmental effects of population sizes to be equally reductive. It would be great if we, as a general populace, were able to think about these issues in a holistic manner that took into consideration the economic, environmental, and social effects of trends, actions, and policies.

What I don't understand, is why the cost of an individual paper from a science journal is so expensive compared to the cost of subscribing. At the very least, they could decrease the price per paper for readers without subscriptions to, like, $2.00 per or something.

So you're saying that it is not possible to accelerate the decline in population growth rates unless we use unethical means? Hmm. There are a number of estimates for how many people the Earth can support. How many people need to disappear, and how much time do you think a drastic population reduction should take? You really don't bother to read anything I post, do you? Why bother discussing something if you aren't willing to listen? That's very frustrating, Santalum. I would really appreciate it if you read the following paragraph and clicked on at least some of the links I present. It'll save so much time and hassle because you won't be making erroneous assumptions. I agree, food aid does not eliminate famine and human suffering. That's because the model is this: 1) grow too much staple foods in the USA at a subsidized rate; 2) ship it over to developing countries as "aid", thus further subsidizing the unsustainable industrial agriculture model in the US; 3) neglect to notice when it completely destroys local economies in developing countries, including Somalia and Haiti, to name a few. (See the links? Click'em! It's an awesome way to learn more.) Again, I AGREE that the real task is to fix underlying structural problems. IMO, the old aid model doesn't work. That's why I support the work of La via Campesina(click it!), Tiller's International (click it!), Soils, Foods and Healthy Communities(click it!) and other such organizations or research groups that focus on the long term project of increasing food sovereignty. (SFHC also has a health component to their project). If you review what I wrote about the model in a previous post, I talked about "participatory action research". These aren't just random words strung together, they are a completely different way to do research and development. I suggest you click the link and read before making assumptions. Now, once again, I've provided evidence. Once again, you've provided faulty assumptions, along with a lack of evidence for your assumptions ...

You could use the most recent estimate. Or, if they are all recent, you could simply say that estimates range from 2 - 10 percent, then cite all the papers that contain the estimates.

If food limitation is the main factor affecting HUMAN fecundity rates, then how come developed countries have lower fecundities than countries that are food insecure? I have a huge amount of food available to me. How come I don't have 10 kids yet? How many kids do you have? Canada, Australia, the US, and most European countries have very low fecundity rates. That's because of a host of factors: many women work outside the home, decent health care reduces infant and child mortality rates, thus decreasing the fear that a child will be killed, enough food, which again, decreases infant and child mortality rates, and good education. It's hard to have any of these things if you're starving. The onus is on you to provide hard evidence (data) that improving the ability of farmers to grow their own nutritious food increases human suffering in the long run. It seems a no brainer to me that starving Africans to keep infant mortality high causes more human suffering. It's also quite racist to assume that Africans would breed like bunnies if only they had enough food.

You're making an assumption that food limitation decreases fecundity in humans. I do believe you've made this assumption before. So I ask you again, if this were the case, then how come countries with excess food have lower fecundities than countries that are food insecure? So how come you're not answering my question? This is getting tiring and circular.

You didn't ask a question previously, yet I asked a very specific, important, question and you evaded answering. How come? And again, you didn't read what I wrote. I didn't say that sustainable food initiatives increase food production. I said they change the distribution of food in the world. Many of the questions you've asked in this post, I've already answered multiple times in this thread and others. But, I'll regurgitate if you answer the one simple question I asked.

I never even noticed that! It must be a coincidence, then that Santalum joined the last day Boyles was active, and both seem to be from Australia ....

Why is it that this topic always gets so heated? I asked you a valid question and you responded with an ad hominem attack. I will ask again: how would you ethically speed up the decline of global population growth rates? I'm going to add a caveat now: how would you do so without increasing environmental harm? Instead of getting all hypothetical in your head, can you be practical and think about what would actually happen on the ground? I agree that the green revolution was a disaster. And I'm not meaning to be rude, but you suggesting that sustainable agricultural initiatives are akin to the green revolution suggests to me that you might want to read up on what the food sovereignty movement, which is what I'm alluding to in my previous post: Sustainable food initiatives, especially those concerned with food sovereignty, are focused on changing the distribution of food rather than increasing the production of food. We already grow enough food to hypothetically feed everyone on the planet. The problem is that the distribution is highly unequal, partially because poor farmers in developing countries can't afford green revolution technologies, and/or they lack the know-how, land, seed stock, or all three to grow their own food sustainably. If you actually read my previous post, you'd realize that this sentence is not what I said at all. Please re-read. Thus far, you haven't provided any evidence that a) it is more sensible and achievable to speed up the decline in the global rate of population growth and b) this would decrease poverty moreso than enabling people to be self-sufficient in growing their own sustainable food. Again, I'd love to learn about your practical solutions. And recognize that again, population growth is declining, and I'm in complete favour of the notion that everyone should have access to contraceptives. (I just don't want you to take me out of context again.)

Often, "make them understand" turns into forced sterilization and other such human indignities. See India and China as prime examples of this. I would also like to remind you that world population growth rates are declining. I have hard time believing that there's an ethical way to speed up the decline of global population growth rates. If you have any specific ideas, I'd love to hear them. Ooooh what a guilt trip! Seriously? Do you seriously believe that white people flying over to African countries for the sole purpose of telling those uneducated breeders they should stop breeding right NOW will decrease the chances of human suffering moreso than, for example, financially and physically supporting sustainable agricultural initiatives? If you think the former, then you need to travel more. If there's one thing I've learned, it's that people do not like being told what to do, especially when said "advice" goes against their morals and ethics and is presented by a richer, smug person who has absolutely no understanding of the ins and outs of their daily life. If we want to make a change, we need to focus on participatory action research, eco-teams, and other efforts that change the communities from the inside out by presenting options, giving communities a chance to experiment with those options and letting them make their own decisions. For example, participatory action research has been very successful in Ethiopia, Malawi, and Eritrea, to name a few, in sustainably improving the lives of people living now. That's because their not "telling" people what to do, they're working with communities to figure out the most effective methods, providing support when needed, but allowing the farmers to ultimately make the decisions.

To the first question: If you look at global population growth over the past 100 years or so, the trend suggests that global human populations are currently growing logistically, and if current trends continue as is, we will level off between 9 to 11 billion. I very much doubt the earth can sustain that many people over the long term, given current technologies and rates of extraction, but it might be possible to sustain that many people over the short term. I do not believe that technology is infinite. However, I do believe that at this stage in human development, low-tech agricultural solutions, improving the efficiency and ecological integrity of our various industries, and focusing on developing a diverse set of renewable energies will benefit humankind far more than blaming developing countries for their population growth. Isn't the stat that one person in a developed country consumes on average, 17 times the amount of stuff a person in a developing country consumes? I'm an in full support of the concept that contraceptives and sex education should be available to all persons. As a feminist, I actually believe that contraceptives should be a fundamental human right -- because access to contraceptives greatly improves the standard of living for many women. I just feel like the overpopulation crowd tends to have their blinders on with this issue -- they think that if we could somehow miraculously decrease global population by X amount (and X varies because the carrying capacity of the planet is highly dependent on technology) then everything would be hunky dory. They forget that the way countries develop now, increased access to contraceptives, education, and an overall better standard of living greatly increases the per capita environmental impact. If we are to truly sustain humankind over the long term, there needs to be a fundamental shift in the culture of development, and that starts with changing how we use technology.

It need not be human bones, and apparently, organic farmers already use it:http://www.quantumagriculture.com/blog/homemade-phosphorus-fertilizer For vegetarian farmers, human urine is also a good source of phosphorus, especially when mixed with sea water: http://transitioneastoxford.blogspot.com/2009/09/blog-post.html