It's the same definition that everyone uses.

Funny, none of them define it specifically the way you do. While also conveniently ignoring the simple fact that the data presented does show a rebound, just as I originally stated.

The review writer admits it's their own conclusion, not the study's. Which brings up the question, why didn't you link to the actual study, rather than one that contained several flaws, as pointed out in the comments to the page you cite?

One, the writer doesn't "admit" any such thing: You're projecting. Two, I didn't refer you to the study itself for the simple reason I didn't think you'd want to pay $32 for the privilege. Now let's see if you can figure out why I said that. Go do your own Googling. :-p

The "red ochre paint" can also be easily explained by iron in the ground or dissolved in the groundwater, or if the burial site had any clay around - you know, that stuff we dig up from the ground. No human intervention needed to "paint the bones."

Man, you are desperate. And apparently illiterate, since you didn't read the report.

Until we either invent time travel, or find out that the Neanderthals had a written language and learn how to read it, any claim that they had religion is purely speculative, and falls into the line of "extraordinary claims needing extraordinary proof."

Given the evidence for religious and ritual practice throughout the history of Homo sapiens, by consensus of anthropologists, the burden of proof is on the person making the extraordinary claim. That would be...you.

Ta-ta! Have fun trolling yourself even more!

Cheers,

Ethelred

To do so in the name of god is just more stupidity.

To argue for depriving them of their right to have whatever size family they please (so long as they are not an actual burden on the rest of society, which this family apparently isn't) when you yourself demand similar rights to live your life they way you choose (and get public recognition of it) is the height of hypocrisy.

Do you believe that god gave them orders to multiply exponentially? And if it's so great and godly, why don't you do it, to help fill the void left by all those kids that weren't born because of the Pill?

My own personal beliefs in this are irrelevant, aside from that belief that you're only trolling, mostly yourself. (Though maybe the fact I have two kids, the last one four years ago, ought to tell you something.)

I don't care if they believe Martians told them to do it. They are entitled to believe whatever they want, so long as they don't burden anyone else. There is no solid case case for them being an undue burden. There is a case for you finding something to nitpick over just because they are of a different religious persuasion. Guess you haven't gotten over your past after all, huh?

Or is it possible that you're defending them because of a misplaced "religious solidarity" - that an attack on religion should be pushed back, because yours might be the next?

Actually, I spent a lifetime arguing for the rights of atheists to be left alone. Nice own goal you scored there.

With friends like you, who needs enemas?

Cheers,

Ethelred

lulz. The feeling is mutual. :-p

Somehow you managed to read it without understanding it -- what was that again?

Cheers,

Ethelred

Obviously people who use references to back up their bogus arguments are more successful than myself.

Or maybe it's your arguments are bogus because you can't back them up with references...fairly basic concept in school dontchaknow. *shrug*

Using citations to make you seem less ignorant of the topics you claim to have an understanding of only works on the very, very lame.

If you had bothered to read the link (which you clearly haven't), you would see why I use the term. (Hint: I'm a child of the Cold War.) It is quite common, as the link says, to use the term as a synonym for "developing world". Since every idiot knows what is meant when I say it, I use that term, rather than going all PC with "Global South" or some other nonsense.

Cry to Mommy.

Cheers,

Ethelred

There's going to be as much of a cultural divide as between, say, people from different religions, on all sorts of things, some obvious, some more subtle.

And my suggestion to those that have a problem with it: Grow. Up.

Your attempt at feigned sympathy is really quite amazing. Keep up the good work!

Cheers,

Ethelred

I thought I taught you that there is no such thing as the "Third World".

You "taught" me?

Sorry massa, I didna know! I be good boy now massa!

It's so incredibly obvious here that no citations are needed.

Riiiiiiiight.

because they would not support your Weltanschauung and therefore would be ignored, therefore my efforts would be completely futile and a waste of time.

Von der Verwendung eines deutschen Begriffs bin ich ganz und gar nicht beeindruckt. Aber netter Versuch.

Cheers,

Ethelred

Modern agriculture requires lots of cheap energy in the form of petro-chemicals. And modern pesticides, and modern fertilizers, etc., which also come from - you guessed it - non-renewable resources.

You're apparently not up to date on your agriculture, or only half informed (why am I not surprised). GM foods would go a long way to resolving problems in the Third World. So would using modern organic methods. So would having access to modern information sources (for things like weather reports and long-term forecasts, but also market conditions). There is no reason they would have to use the same kinds of fertilizer that were used in the past, while still getting a huge bonus in production.

A "hockey stick" curve is a sharp, and continual, rise, with no end in sight.

Since when is this defined the way you want it to be? You dig up one lousy link that doesn't even strictly define it the way you claim, and then act like I'm supposed to be impressed?

Don't bother answering that. I'm not really interested.

That "conclusion" is NOT part of the study

ORLY? Have the study in your hand, do you?

Not necessarily. It's just common sense to bury your dead to keep predators away, keep the remains from poisoning local drinking sources, and to keep their weapons (those that you can't carry with you) out of your opponents' hands.

Well, that's funny, because anthropologists routinely say things along the lines of burial "may be one of the earliest detectable forms of religious practice" because it signifies "concern for the dead that transcends daily life". Gee, who do I believe more, a leading researcher in the field, or a two-bit crank troll with an axe to grind?

Indeed at the earliest known burial site, the person was buried with obviously manipulated tokens, such as jawbones used as tools placed in the arms of the dead, and were painted with red ochre. That practically screams "preparation for the afterlife" and "religious ritual".

IOW: YFI. It's really quite amusing watching someone who claims to be an atheist in the name of truth pull the wool over his (or her) own eyes.

So, I've provided evidence that there's a HUGE difference in expected outcomes between the L and J curves

No, you have provided baseless arguments, which is not the same thing. Try again.

Cheers,

Ethelred

I've learned from experience that people are more likely to believe their own mythologies and back them up with confabulations and rationalizations from what they have read from what they consider to be reliable sources.

As opposed to people who offer no sources at all. *shrug*

Cheers,

Ethelred

Knowledge of a subject is not equivalent to understanding.

You appear to want to prove this by example.

Tip: read everything with the understanding that the person who wrote it is probably not very intelligent despite their job title, certifications or pseudonym.

Thanks for the warning: I'll keep it in mind when reading your posts from now on.

Cheers,

Ethelred

I had pointed out that they would be considered the odd ones

With all due respect, this coming from a tranny? You really must be joking.

Cheers,

Ethelred

I keep hearing that, and it's simply not true. Increasing population is destabilizing society by putting more pressure on limited resources.

Thus your "solution" is to dramatically increase the economic and social burden on the young by making them pay for the care of proportionately ever more elderly. Which is a recipe for a downward spiral in prosperity.

Besides, if modern agriculture was used in the Third World, the planet could easily sustain upwards of 12 billion people with little trouble. The idea of "limited resources" is a Malthusian myth.

Fun fact: If each man, woman and child on Earth would be allocated one square meter, they would all fit, for example, in Algonquin Park with room to spare.

The oil wars are a red herring. Whenever a resource becomes scarce, people come up with a more efficient alternative. Onward and upward. *shrug*

The difference is VERY significant - it means what I wrote - a slight rebound, not a return to former levels. The article even goes on to say that the most likely end result is slightly under zero population growth.

Um, actually, no, it doesn't say that. Nice try, though. (In fact it simply says "uncoerced zero growth". It also makes no specific prediction for where the curve will end up. Nor did I say anything about "returning to former levels". Nor does it contradict my original description of a "hockey stick" shape, unless you want to get into stupid semantics over whether a hockey stick is shaped like a J or an L. Thanks, but I have better things to do with my time.)

Other definitions would stretch it back to the Neanderthals, who after all, gave us agriculture, animal husbandry, the use of fire, clothing (and the whole fashion industry), and that greatest of inventions, art. Think of it - formalizing the practice of using symbols to represent physical objects - it's the basis of writing, communications across time and distance, and most of our entertainment industries

The Neanderthals also buried their dead, strongly implying religious belief. You're still flailing about. And, I happily note, have yet to provide evidence for any of the claims you've made so far.

In fact it looks like you've managed to troll yourself. That takes uncommon talent.

Cheers,

Ethelred

Economic factors play a role in how many children people decide to have, so it would be expected to see a rise when people make more money - but only to the level of people having as many kids as they actually want. So the "rebound" is not going to be l-shaped, and I suspect that in most economies it's really not much more than statistical noise, when you look at long-term trends.

Ummm...you apparently haven't read the article. It is a very clear trend, and yes, it is L-shaped. Whether or not you observe it in anecdotal evidence is not terribly relevant, any more than a creationist insisting evolution isn't real because he hasn't seen it in action. (In fact Canada was specifically mentioned as one of the few countries bucking the trend.)

They're also going to be in the same boat as some of the kids I grew up with, but in reverse. I had a couple of friends who were single children, and in those days being a single child was unheard of. Smaller families have a different dynamic, different behaviour, and different ways of communicating and coping than large families.

Oh, so no one should be allowed to have more than two kids because Tom Hudson thinks she should impose her idea of family values on others, when that same Tom Hudson complains loudest when others do the same to her? What kind of fucked-up self-serving logic is that?

They aren't creating a burden to anyone. (Somebody's gotta take up the slack of others not having kids, just in order to maintain a stable society.) Therefore they are perfectly entitled to have as many children as they see fit. The end.

They're going to be the odd ducks out socially.

Only because blackhearted people like yourself have decided to raise a stink about something that is none of your business. Congratulations, you just surrendered any logical reason to get up in arms when others do the same to you.

Seriously, they're breeding grounds for the next generation of atheists, as they do like all kids do, and assert their independence by rejecting what their parents did. Funny thing, though - kids reject religious parents beliefs, but not so much atheist parents beliefs.

Something which you have conveniently failed to provide anything to back that up with except your say-so. Anecdotal evidence is an oxymoron.

Maybe not being religious is the true norm for humans, and the last 5,000 years has been a bit of an aberration for much of humankind.

Considering that human civilization has only existed for at the very most 8,000 years, which arose at exactly the same time religion did (not 5,000 BTW...you could at least get your history straight) only demonstrates your own desperation to revise history to suit yourself.

No matter how you slice it, atheism in a civilized world is the clear historical aberration. :-p

Cheers,

Ethelred

Birth rates generally decline with higher levels of education.

Actually, in the most recent Economist issue, there is some evidence coming to light that that trend is shaped like a hockey stick. After a certain level of affluence and education is reached, the number of children per mother goes up again.

And while the tone of the AC up yonder bugs me a bit, I do have to ask: They're not on welfare, they're paying their own way, and the kids seem well-adjusted. Where's the problem?

Sounds to me like a bit of jealously and a fit of pique that atheists are being out-bred. Evolution's a bitch, innit? :-p

Cheers,

Ethelred

It so happens that the very first HMO in Minnesota, Group Health, was in fact a co-op just as you describe. And indeed, when we were with them they were pretty decent overall.

But then they merged several times with other HMOs and became what is now known as HealthPartners, and are just as shitty as any other HMO.

All I can say is, I continue to be very thankful for the German health care system and our insurer here.

Cheers,

Ethelred