[Taxacom] Taxacom Digest, Vol 58, Issue 1: > 1. New Year thoughts (Bob Mesibov)

Mauri Åhlberg mauri.ahlberg at helsinki.fi
Sat Jan 1 12:48:33 CST 2011


I agree on Bob on his observations and reflections. I am eaqually  
worried about this situation caused by mindless "science education",  
neglecting learning to identify local species and ecosystems. The core  
to sustainability is sustainable use of biosphere and its local  
biodiversity. This requires rapid and easy local species  
identification that is realized in NatureGate Online approach that  
could be implemented all over the World, on each region an locality:  
http://www.iucn.org/about/union/commissions/cec/?2614/


"It alarms me that I can't find much of what used to be called
> 'natural history' in today's curricula. The 'gee whiz!' in today's  
> biology is Craig Venter sticking a 'synthetic' genome into a  
> prokaryote cell, not the revealing of one of the mind-bogglingly  
> complex *natural* connections between (for example) a phytophagous  
> insect, its plant host or its parasites and predators. Here in  
> Tasmania I can still get 'OMG!' reactions from people of all ages by  
> showing them on a bushwalk how our common terrestrial nemertean  
> everts its proboscis, or that a certain bright-yellow strip of slimy  
> material in their garden is actually a living, actively predacious  
> terrestrial triclad. But neither of these common animals is in any  
> biology course here. 'Worms' aren't science, it seems. I'll try to  
> work on that..."


Best wishes

Mauri

Mauri Åhlberg (in English: Ahlberg) FLS
(1) Professor of Biology and Sustainability Education
http://www.helsinki.fi/people/mauri.ahlberg
(2) Research Director of NatureGate Online Services
http://www.naturegate.net
(3) Expert member of IUCN CEC
http://www.iucn.org/about/union/commissions/cec/?2614/
(4) Senior Advisor of ENSI, one of the World's leading EE and ESD programs
http://www.ensi.org/Members/Senior_Advisors/

BLOG: http://blogs.helsinki.fi/maahlber/author/maahlber/
FACEBOOK: http://www.facebook.com/people/Mauri-Ahlberg/100000393951781
MOTTO: "Probably, Internet is the biggest infrastructure created by  
humankind. It'll make possible fast, meaningful, collaborative  
learning for humanity."



Lainaus taxacom-request at mailman.nhm.ku.edu:

> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to
> 	taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	taxacom-request at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Taxacom digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. New Year thoughts (Bob Mesibov)
>    2. New Year thoughts - arithmetic correction (Bob Mesibov)
>    3. (no subject) (Don.Colless at csiro.au)
>    4. Re: New Years thoughts (Kenneth Kinman)
>    5. Re: New Years thoughts (Robin Leech)
>    6. Re: New Year thoughts (Bob Mesibov)
>    7. Re: New Years thoughts (Kenneth Kinman)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 12:28:44 +1100
> From: Bob Mesibov <mesibov at southcom.com.au>
> Subject: [Taxacom] New Year thoughts
> To: TAXACOM <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Message-ID: <20110101122844.22544394.mesibov at southcom.com.au>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Every New Year the Australian federal government makes available  
> previously archived 'secret' documents from 30 years earlier. This  
> year's release includes a statement to federal Cabinet from the  
> then-Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser. He urged formal Australian  
> support for the World Conservation Strategy proposed by the UN, WWF  
> and the IUCNNR:
>
> 'Development requires modification and transformation of the  
> environment ? The planet's capacity to support its people is being  
> irreversibly reduced by the destruction and degradation of the  
> biosphere and the need to understand the problem and take corrective  
> action is becoming urgent.'
>
> Fraser was talking at a time when the world's population was  
> estimated to be 4.5 billion. Thirty years later it's 7 billion.  
> That's an almost 80% increase in about one generation. The rate of  
> capacity reduction hasn't tracked the population increase, which  
> would be bad enough, but has instead kept in step with the demand on  
> resources needed for modern lifestyles. This demand has increased  
> enormously in the past 30 years, notably in China and India, which  
> is why I don't say 'Western' lifestyles.
>
> Another Australian, biologist Harry Recher, has pointed out that  
> there are no unused natural resources. Every bit of land and water  
> not being used by humans is used by other species. When we  
> appropriate those resources, we reduce what's available to those  
> species and increase their risk of extinction. Intensifying use also  
> increases the risk: there are species on farms that can't survive in  
> small towns, and species in small towns that can't survive in cities  
> and industrial lands.
>
> All these things were well understood 30 years ago, and the best the  
> world's conservation strategies have managed to achieve in that time  
> is to increase the area of natural reserves around the world.  
> Anything more in the way of 'corrective action' is pretty hopeless,  
> like demanding that your children have no kids or only 1, or that  
> meat eaters around the world should change to a mainly vegetarian  
> diet.
>
> Those of us interested in discovering and documenting the world's  
> biodiversity before it disappears also face a gloomy future.  
> Remarkable new digital tools and rapid publishing may be making  
> individual taxonomists more productive, but that increased  
> productivity is being compensated by a steady decline in the  
> worldwide total of discoverers-and-documenters. We are not growing  
> enough taxonomists. Meanwhile, biodiversity salvage of disappearing  
> habitats remains low on every funding body's priority list, so we  
> are also not discovering and documenting where the disappearing is  
> fastest.
>
> What else can be done? I've previously pushed here (ad nauseam to  
> some) on Taxacom for biodiversity salvage and for 'open taxonomy'  
> online projects which anyone can join. I'm begining to think that a  
> third worthwhile strategy is to remind potential  
> discoverers-and-documenters just how amazing the natural world is,  
> in detail. Too many students around the world (at primary, secondary  
> and tertiary) are having their heads sucked into intellectual  
> structures which generalise ecology, or evolutionary relationships.  
> Too much boring big picture, too little surprising detail.
>
> It alarms me that I can't find much of what used to be called  
> 'natural history' in today's curricula. The 'gee whiz!' in today's  
> biology is Craig Venter sticking a 'synthetic' genome into a  
> prokaryote cell, not the revealing of one of the mind-bogglingly  
> complex *natural* connections between (for example) a phytophagous  
> insect, its plant host or its parasites and predators. Here in  
> Tasmania I can still get 'OMG!' reactions from people of all ages by  
> showing them on a bushwalk how our common terrestrial nemertean  
> everts its proboscis, or that a certain bright-yellow strip of slimy  
> material in their garden is actually a living, actively predacious  
> terrestrial triclad. But neither of these common animals is in any  
> biology course here. 'Worms' aren't science, it seems. I'll try to  
> work on that...
> --
> Dr Robert Mesibov
> Honorary Research Associate
> Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, and
> School of Zoology, University of Tasmania
> Home contact: PO Box 101, Penguin, Tasmania, Australia 7316
> Ph: (03) 64371195; 61 3 64371195
> Webpage: http://www.qvmag.tas.gov.au/?articleID=570
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 13:34:52 +1100
> From: Bob Mesibov <mesibov at southcom.com.au>
> Subject: [Taxacom] New Year thoughts - arithmetic correction
> To: TAXACOM <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Message-ID: <20110101133452.df1e2307.mesibov at southcom.com.au>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> Whoops. Make that a 55% increase in population in 30 years, not ca  
> 80%, from 4.5 to 7 billion. Must've had too much mind-fuzzing  
> liquids last night...
> --
> Dr Robert Mesibov
> Honorary Research Associate
> Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, and
> School of Zoology, University of Tasmania
> Home contact: PO Box 101, Penguin, Tasmania, Australia 7316
> Ph: (03) 64371195; 61 3 64371195
> Webpage: http://www.qvmag.tas.gov.au/?articleID=570
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 14:39:49 +1100
> From: <Don.Colless at csiro.au>
> Subject: [Taxacom] (no subject)
> To: <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Cc: <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Message-ID:
> 	<4929677685F1E6458DDF5A3445976A8A236BD7D8E2 at exvic-mbx05.nexus.csiro.au>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> To all TAXACOMERS:
>
> 1      Coming Year = 2011
> 2      Wishing You Health and Happiness in Coming Year
> 3      If satisfied GOTO 6
> 4      Coming Year = Coming Year + 1
> 5      GOTO 2
> 6      STOP
>
>
> Donald H. Colless
> CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences
> GPO Box 1700
> Canberra 2601
> don.colless at csiro.au
> tuz li munz est miens envirun
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 22:31:36 -0600
> From: kennethkinman at webtv.net (Kenneth Kinman)
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New Years thoughts
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Message-ID: <10121-4D1EAE28-7599 at storefull-3251.bay.webtv.net>
> Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>  Hi Bob,
> ?????????As for your correction, actually I think your
> first calculation was correct. Almost an 80% increase in the world
> population (of humans) in 30 years. The 4.5 billion we had then was bad
> enough, but it has now reached insane levels (although the Catholic
> Church, big governments, and big corporations seem to benefit from more
> followers, tax payers, and cheap labor). It has been so for a very long
> time.
> ????????And I really think we could learn a lot from the
> Chinese who have taken population control seriously. The one-child
> policy has been widely (but simplistically) criticized because people
> haven't looked at it carefully. Over half of the population have
> exemptions to this policy, and it is mainly applied to urban centers
> (where population control is most needed---and certainly NOT ONLY in
> China). The freedom to excessively overreproduce has been touted for far
> too long (especially by the powerful who financially benefit).
> ???????I can remember 40 years ago as a young college
> student being very impressed by Paul Ehrlich and the "Zero Population
> Growth" movement. And even before that I wrote a paper in High School on
> Robert Malthus, who was warning about the population problem over 200
> years ago. When is humanity (beyond China) finally going to wake up and
> actually do something about it???
> ????????I might also add that China taxes it highest
> income rates at 45%. The U.S. reverting back to 39% would have been a
> good thing, but politics and greed got in the way. Actually even 45%
> seem way to low to me if someone is earning over $5 million dollars per
> year. Beyond that income, it's usually just the "Lifestyles of the Rich
> and Famous" that often waste money on superficiality (and are often not
> all that happier for it). Especially those who spend their time and
> money on cosmetic surgery, overpriced art, yachts, mansions, ad nauseum.
> ? Even Warren Buffet himself seems to think this is terribly wasteful,
> unfair, and counterproductive.
> ?????????But getting back to biodiversity, until we
> can actually increase the measly tiny slice of the economic pie which
> humanity allocates to biodiversity (which is pathetically meager), we
> need to allocate that available pie to LIVING biodiversity---its
> documentation and preservation. That means that dinosaur fossils should
> take a back seat in the meantime. Collect and store such specimens that
> are most valuable and in danger of being eroded away, but the extremely
> expensive process of preparation can wait until later.
> ????????Just because little kids think dinosaurs are
> fascinating is no reason for adults to justify such excessive
> expeditures on fossils of animals that are long dead and gone. Likewise,
> adults should resist kids demanding to go to fast food joints (etc.)
> just because adveritizing on cartoons make them badger their parents
> that they want (not need) the toys that come with fast food. No wonder
> obesity is such a problem. Spoiled kids obsessed with sports, fashion,
> consumerism, celebrities, and facebook, is absurd and not indicative of
> a good future. And speaking of Facebook, that its 26-year-old founder is
> now a multi-billionaire is just one sign  of such absurdity. Only in a
> society obsessed with advertizing and consumption would such
> billionaries exist. That billionaires are taxed below 80-90% is absurd
> in itself, so the debate in the U.S Congress over raising it from 35% to
> even 39% is so ludicrous it boggles the mind.
> ????????????????---------Ken
> ----------------------------------------------
> Bob Mesibov wrote:
> ????????????Every New Year the Australian
> federal government makes available previously archived 'secret'
> documents from 30 years earlier. This year's release includes a
> statement to federal Cabinet from the then-Prime Minister Malcolm
> Fraser. He urged formal Australian support for the World Conservation
> Strategy proposed by the UN, WWF and the IUCNNR:
> 'Development requires modification and transformation of the environment
> ? The planet's capacity to support its people is being irreversibly
> reduced by the destruction and degradation of the biosphere and the need
> to understand the problem and take corrective action is becoming
> urgent.'
> ??????????Fraser was talking at a time when the
> world's population was estimated to be 4.5 billion. Thirty years later
> it's 7 billion. That's an almost 80% increase in about one generation.
> The rate of capacity reduction hasn't tracked the population increase,
> which would be bad enough, but has instead kept in step with the demand
> on resources needed for modern lifestyles. This demand has increased
> enormously in the past 30 years, notably in China and India, which is
> why I don't say 'Western' lifestyles.
> ??????????Another Australian, biologist Harry
> Recher, has pointed out that there are no unused natural resources.
> Every bit of land and water not being used by humans is used by other
> species. When we appropriate those resources, we reduce what's available
> to those species and increase their risk of extinction. Intensifying use
> also increases the risk: there are species on farms that can't survive
> in small towns, and species in small towns that can't survive in cities
> and industrial lands.
> ????????All these things were well understood 30 years
> ago, and the best the world's conservation strategies have managed to
> achieve in that time is to increase the area of natural reserves around
> the world. Anything more in the way of 'corrective action' is pretty
> hopeless, like demanding that your children have no kids or only 1, or
> that meat eaters around the world should change to a mainly vegetarian
> diet.
> ??????????Those of us interested in discovering and
> documenting the world's biodiversity before it disappears also face a
> gloomy future. Remarkable new digital tools and rapid publishing may be
> making individual taxonomists more productive, but that increased
> productivity is being compensated by a steady decline in the worldwide
> total of discoverers-and-documenters. We are not growing enough
> taxonomists. Meanwhile, biodiversity salvage of disappearing habitats
> remains low on every funding body's priority list, so we are also not
> discovering and documenting where the disappearing is fastest. What else
> can be done? I've previously pushed here (ad nauseam to some) on Taxacom
> for biodiversity salvage and for 'open taxonomy' online projects which
> anyone can join. I'm begining to think that a third worthwhile strategy
> is to remind potential discoverers-and-documenters just how amazing the
> natural world is, in detail. Too many students around the world (at
> primary, secondary and tertiary) are having their heads sucked into
> intellectual structures which generalise ecology, or evolutionary
> relationships. Too much boring big picture, too little surprising
> detail.
> It alarms me that I can't find much of what used to be called 'natural
> history' in today's curricula. The 'gee whiz!' in today's biology is
> Craig Venter sticking a 'synthetic' genome into a prokaryote cell, not
> the revealing of one of the mind-bogglingly complex *natural*
> connections between (for example) a phytophagous insect, its plant host
> or its parasites and predators. Here in Tasmania I can still get 'OMG!'
> reactions from people of all ages by showing them on a bushwalk how our
> common terrestrial nemertean everts its proboscis, or that a certain
> bright-yellow strip of slimy material in their garden is actually a
> living, actively predacious terrestrial triclad. But neither of these
> common animals is in any biology course here. 'Worms' aren't science, it
> seems. I'll try to work on that...
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 22:14:37 -0700
> From: "Robin Leech" <releech at telus.net>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New Years thoughts
> To: "Kenneth Kinman" <kennethkinman at webtv.net>,
> 	<taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Message-ID: <23751B688F094B7389B2732DA63935C1 at Leech>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> 	reply-type=original
>
> Actually, Ken, the Chinese have dropped the 1-child policy as it interferes
> with economics.  The Chinese and other Asian countries are locked into
> Keynesian economic philosophies.
> Robin
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kenneth Kinman" <kennethkinman at webtv.net>
> To: <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Sent: Friday, December 31, 2010 9:31 PM
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New Years thoughts
>
>
> Hi Bob,
> As for your correction, actually I think your
> first calculation was correct. Almost an 80% increase in the world
> population (of humans) in 30 years. The 4.5 billion we had then was bad
> enough, but it has now reached insane levels (although the Catholic
> Church, big governments, and big corporations seem to benefit from more
> followers, tax payers, and cheap labor). It has been so for a very long
> time.
> And I really think we could learn a lot from the
> Chinese who have taken population control seriously. The one-child
> policy has been widely (but simplistically) criticized because people
> haven't looked at it carefully. Over half of the population have
> exemptions to this policy, and it is mainly applied to urban centers
> (where population control is most needed---and certainly NOT ONLY in
> China). The freedom to excessively overreproduce has been touted for far
> too long (especially by the powerful who financially benefit).
> I can remember 40 years ago as a young college
> student being very impressed by Paul Ehrlich and the "Zero Population
> Growth" movement. And even before that I wrote a paper in High School on
> Robert Malthus, who was warning about the population problem over 200
> years ago. When is humanity (beyond China) finally going to wake up and
> actually do something about it???
> I might also add that China taxes it highest
> income rates at 45%. The U.S. reverting back to 39% would have been a
> good thing, but politics and greed got in the way. Actually even 45%
> seem way to low to me if someone is earning over $5 million dollars per
> year. Beyond that income, it's usually just the "Lifestyles of the Rich
> and Famous" that often waste money on superficiality (and are often not
> all that happier for it). Especially those who spend their time and
> money on cosmetic surgery, overpriced art, yachts, mansions, ad nauseum.
> Even Warren Buffet himself seems to think this is terribly wasteful,
> unfair, and counterproductive.
> But getting back to biodiversity, until we
> can actually increase the measly tiny slice of the economic pie which
> humanity allocates to biodiversity (which is pathetically meager), we
> need to allocate that available pie to LIVING biodiversity---its
> documentation and preservation. That means that dinosaur fossils should
> take a back seat in the meantime. Collect and store such specimens that
> are most valuable and in danger of being eroded away, but the extremely
> expensive process of preparation can wait until later.
> Just because little kids think dinosaurs are
> fascinating is no reason for adults to justify such excessive
> expeditures on fossils of animals that are long dead and gone. Likewise,
> adults should resist kids demanding to go to fast food joints (etc.)
> just because adveritizing on cartoons make them badger their parents
> that they want (not need) the toys that come with fast food. No wonder
> obesity is such a problem. Spoiled kids obsessed with sports, fashion,
> consumerism, celebrities, and facebook, is absurd and not indicative of
> a good future. And speaking of Facebook, that its 26-year-old founder is
> now a multi-billionaire is just one sign  of such absurdity. Only in a
> society obsessed with advertizing and consumption would such
> billionaries exist. That billionaires are taxed below 80-90% is absurd
> in itself, so the debate in the U.S Congress over raising it from 35% to
> even 39% is so ludicrous it boggles the mind.
> ---------Ken
> ----------------------------------------------
> Bob Mesibov wrote:
> Every New Year the Australian
> federal government makes available previously archived 'secret'
> documents from 30 years earlier. This year's release includes a
> statement to federal Cabinet from the then-Prime Minister Malcolm
> Fraser. He urged formal Australian support for the World Conservation
> Strategy proposed by the UN, WWF and the IUCNNR:
> 'Development requires modification and transformation of the environment
> ? The planet's capacity to support its people is being irreversibly
> reduced by the destruction and degradation of the biosphere and the need
> to understand the problem and take corrective action is becoming
> urgent.'
> Fraser was talking at a time when the
> world's population was estimated to be 4.5 billion. Thirty years later
> it's 7 billion. That's an almost 80% increase in about one generation.
> The rate of capacity reduction hasn't tracked the population increase,
> which would be bad enough, but has instead kept in step with the demand
> on resources needed for modern lifestyles. This demand has increased
> enormously in the past 30 years, notably in China and India, which is
> why I don't say 'Western' lifestyles.
> Another Australian, biologist Harry
> Recher, has pointed out that there are no unused natural resources.
> Every bit of land and water not being used by humans is used by other
> species. When we appropriate those resources, we reduce what's available
> to those species and increase their risk of extinction. Intensifying use
> also increases the risk: there are species on farms that can't survive
> in small towns, and species in small towns that can't survive in cities
> and industrial lands.
> All these things were well understood 30 years
> ago, and the best the world's conservation strategies have managed to
> achieve in that time is to increase the area of natural reserves around
> the world. Anything more in the way of 'corrective action' is pretty
> hopeless, like demanding that your children have no kids or only 1, or
> that meat eaters around the world should change to a mainly vegetarian
> diet.
> Those of us interested in discovering and
> documenting the world's biodiversity before it disappears also face a
> gloomy future. Remarkable new digital tools and rapid publishing may be
> making individual taxonomists more productive, but that increased
> productivity is being compensated by a steady decline in the worldwide
> total of discoverers-and-documenters. We are not growing enough
> taxonomists. Meanwhile, biodiversity salvage of disappearing habitats
> remains low on every funding body's priority list, so we are also not
> discovering and documenting where the disappearing is fastest. What else
> can be done? I've previously pushed here (ad nauseam to some) on Taxacom
> for biodiversity salvage and for 'open taxonomy' online projects which
> anyone can join. I'm begining to think that a third worthwhile strategy
> is to remind potential discoverers-and-documenters just how amazing the
> natural world is, in detail. Too many students around the world (at
> primary, secondary and tertiary) are having their heads sucked into
> intellectual structures which generalise ecology, or evolutionary
> relationships. Too much boring big picture, too little surprising
> detail.
> It alarms me that I can't find much of what used to be called 'natural
> history' in today's curricula. The 'gee whiz!' in today's biology is
> Craig Venter sticking a 'synthetic' genome into a prokaryote cell, not
> the revealing of one of the mind-bogglingly complex *natural*
> connections between (for example) a phytophagous insect, its plant host
> or its parasites and predators. Here in Tasmania I can still get 'OMG!'
> reactions from people of all ages by showing them on a bushwalk how our
> common terrestrial nemertean everts its proboscis, or that a certain
> bright-yellow strip of slimy material in their garden is actually a
> living, actively predacious terrestrial triclad. But neither of these
> common animals is in any biology course here. 'Worms' aren't science, it
> seems. I'll try to work on that...
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these
> methods:
>
> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Or (2) a Google search specified as:
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 16:41:48 +1100
> From: Bob Mesibov <mesibov at southcom.com.au>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New Year thoughts
> To: kennethkinman at webtv.net
> Cc: TAXACOM <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Message-ID: <20110101164148.1a2b8bb3.mesibov at southcom.com.au>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> Hi, Ken.
>
> I don't about the USA, but in some other Western countries there's  
> serious interest in overpopulation. Australia has a Stable  
> Population Party and a very active sustainable population activist  
> group: http://www.population.org.au/  If you haven't seen it,  
> there's also David Attenborough's 2009 BBC documentary 'How Many  
> People Can Live on Planet Earth?'. This can be seen free in 6 parts  
> on YouTube, starting here:  
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LF15YAvT9G0  My only concern with it  
> is that the title is asking the wrong question.
>
> Cheers,
> Bob
> --
> Dr Robert Mesibov
> Honorary Research Associate
> Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, and
> School of Zoology, University of Tasmania
> Home contact: PO Box 101, Penguin, Tasmania, Australia 7316
> Ph: (03) 64371195; 61 3 64371195
> Webpage: http://www.qvmag.tas.gov.au/?articleID=570
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 00:05:30 -0600
> From: kennethkinman at webtv.net (Kenneth Kinman)
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New Years thoughts
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Message-ID: <10121-4D1EC42A-7706 at storefull-3251.bay.webtv.net>
> Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII
>
> Hi all,
>       Looks like I made the same arithmetic mistake as Bob.  Not because
> of liquid refreshment, but I'm just tired and the neighbors' aggravating
> dogs won't shut up late at night (an all too common occurrence).
>       In any case, I'm not sure the Chinese have abandoned their
> population control measures, as much as they may have relaxed them
> somewhat as economic pressures and westernization have now marginally
> made a larger work force a little more profitable (although the rural
> population suffers in the process, even more so than the small family
> farm in the U.S.).
>       However, the Chinese still are FAR more successful in managing
> population growth than neighboring India which has largely failed to
> curb its population growth.  It's even worse in areas formerly part of
> India, but now independent (Bangladesh and Pakistan).  The out-sourcing
> of U.S. jobs to India cannot possibly keep up with such population
> growth.  Too many governments just sticking their heads in the sands and
> counting on unreal expectations tht things will continue as is.
>                ---------Ken
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The entire Taxacom Archive back to 1992 can be searched with either  
> of these methods:
>
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Or use a Google search specified as:   
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
>
> End of Taxacom Digest, Vol 58, Issue 1
> **************************************
>
>






More information about the Taxacom mailing list