|
Post by fixit on Jan 25, 2015 22:51:35 GMT -5
This seems like a realistic approach from an Egyptian activist:
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 25, 2015 23:26:01 GMT -5
The Sunni's did not vote in the election. They were allowed to vote, but boycotted because they had been so maligned by the USA. That is, immediately after the invasion, the US decreed that Sunni's were to be removed from all government jobs including teachers and government employees. The effect of this was to turn Iraqi optimism at the time of the invasion into despair, and the insurgency followed in rapid order. The US was heavily involved in installing Maliki. Ibrahim al-Jafaari won the election, but the US could not work with him. The CIA endorsed Maliki because he was a dissident and a Shi-ite, but had no ties to Iran. Finally, the "40 countries" is a facade based on a bit of research I made after your original post. I was interested in why Holland participated in the Invasion. A huge investigation and report was completed by the Dutch government on their involvement, an involvement which was considered illegal under international law, and chagrined many Dutch citizens. The Dutch govt of the day believed there were WMD that were an imminent threat against Europe. The evidence of the WMD came from Blair and from US general Tommy Franks. The Netherlands' own investigation turned up no such evidence but the govt of the day went ahead in any case. Also noted, the Dutch military was not involved in any fighting, and this was a condition of their involvement. I suspect that you'd find similar among the other of the 40 nations with the possible exception of the two soldiers from Tonga. Source - www.rnw.org/archive/saddam-war-decision-backfires-dutch-governmentRNW is a Dutch government agency. The Americans meant well, but they simply should not have even been there. The Sunnis were removed from their positions of privilege as part of the De-Ba'athification process. As it turned out the coalition got little thanks from the Shiite majority for trying to share the power more evenly amongst the religious/ethnic groups. If the coalition had left the Sunnis in power they would have been blamed for favouring a minority over the majority. The Sunnis boycotting free elections was foolish. Do you think Saddam was the government the Iraqis deserved? Probably the biggest mistake the coalition made was in thinking the Arabs would embrace democracy if given the opportunity. Boycotting the election was not foolish. With a Shi'a majority and enmity between the two groups, the Sunni would have had no representation in the new government. On top of this, the US overdid the de-Ba'athification process, at least political analysts think so. The envoy in charge of US operations at the time overrode the objections of his military advisers in terms of his anti-Sunni rulings. Were the Iraqi's ready for democracy? We don't know because they didn't get the opportunity.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 25, 2015 23:34:23 GMT -5
A very good point, Alvin. We are not immune to tyranny. Tyrants live among us; let's work to keep them out of power. Why is it though, that when we see those kinds of horrible effects in other races, ethnicities or religions, those effects re-inforce our prejudice against the entire group. e.g. "This is how Muslims treat their neighbours". When those effects occur in our own race or religion, we hold only the individual(s) accountable. You are right - that wasn't a nice thing to say about Muslims. I deleted my post a few minutes after writing that. I do respect moderates in the Islamic faith as I respect moderates everywhere. However radical Islam is at war with modern secular civilisation. It's not that we want war, but we've been in denial for too long already. We called it "the war on terror" but all along it has been Islamic jihad against secular freedom. It's forced upon us and we have no choice. Appeasement will not work for long. Yes, we could curtail our freedoms by banning Mohammad cartoons but would it make any more difference to world peace than banning Hitler cartoons 80 years ago? "It isn't Islamophobia when they really are trying to kill you." As I point out before, it is acceptable to say, "This is how Muslim extremists treat their neighbours". I also think that voluntarily curtailing blasphemous cartoons, not to mention, ethnic stereotypes, sexist and demeaning behaviour toward women, and racist speech, will all make the world a better place. Like you, I don't believe these kinds of expressions should be curtailed by means of laws. Also, "It is Islamophobia when you think every Muslim is going to kill you."
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 25, 2015 23:52:12 GMT -5
I appreciate and understand your concerns , fixit. Radical islam is a serious threat and danger, I believe, but what percent of Islam would be considered "radical"? When we were in Turkey a while ago, a sincere Muslim girl was telling us that she was AGAINST sharia law, and desired to live in a moderate Muslim society. The country is about 96 percent Muslim, and she believed that it was about 50-50 in favour of "conservative" Muslim. She , herself, with "fire" in her eyes, told us she was willing to die for their "cause" against "radical" Islam, so if any consolation, there are MANY MANY Muslims that would support moderation. I don't know what percentage worldwide, of the Muslim population , would be considered "moderate" and not a threat or danger? I was kinda surprised though, that a number of young graduates from career school and university in Palestine and Jordan, did consider that Sharia law was a desirable thing. Alvin The idea that was floated here in Ontario was that 'sharia' would be used to resolve civil disputes and family matters only when a case was voluntarily submitted to a sharia tribunal. There was initial acceptance of the idea by the govt but the public reaction was so strong that the idea died a quick death. Based on that it would be important to understand what and where these students see sharia law being implemented. Implementation of sharia doesn't automatically imply strict punishments as are found in Saudi Arabia. Many countries whose laws are based on sharia do not have these horrific punishments on their books. The map in the following article indicates the wide variation in how 'sharia' is applied across the Muslim world. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_of_sharia_law_by_country
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Jan 26, 2015 0:11:32 GMT -5
The particular group I was speaking about , was in West Bank. Thanks for that info. I didn't know that. Another thing I found interesting was them telling me it was against their belief to pay or charge interest on a loan. One example of how this worked practically for them, was if they wanted to purchase a car , they would take the details to the bank or whoever was loaning them the money, and the bank would loan them the money interest free, but assess the car at a higher original cost, therefore the same effect as interest, but interest free. Maybe not quite as "tricky" as our car sales system , but pretty close. lol Alvin wiki says this about sharia law in West Bank- The Jordanian personal status law of 1976 is applied. The personal status law is based on Islamic law and regulates matters related to inheritance, marriage, divorce and child custody. Sharia courts hear cases related to personal status. The testimony of a woman is worth only half of that of a man in cases related to marriage, divorce and child custody.[77]
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 26, 2015 0:16:28 GMT -5
I appreciate and understand your concerns , fixit. Radical islam is a serious threat and danger, I believe, but what percent of Islam would be considered "radical"? When we were in Turkey a while ago, a sincere Muslim girl was telling us that she was AGAINST sharia law, and desired to live in a moderate Muslim society. The country is about 96 percent Muslim, and she believed that it was about 50-50 in favour of "conservative" Muslim. She , herself, with "fire" in her eyes, told us she was willing to die for their "cause" against "radical" Islam, so if any consolation, there are MANY MANY Muslims that would support moderation. I don't know what percentage worldwide, of the Muslim population , would be considered "moderate" and not a threat or danger? I was kinda surprised though, that a number of young graduates from career school and university in Palestine and Jordan, did consider that Sharia law was a desirable thing. Alvin The idea that was floated here in Ontario was that 'sharia' would be used to resolve civil disputes and family matters only when a case was voluntarily submitted to a sharia tribunal. There was initial acceptance of the idea by the govt but the public reaction was so strong that the idea died a quick death. Based on that it would be important to understand what and where these students see sharia law being implemented. Implementation of sharia doesn't automatically imply strict punishments as are found in Saudi Arabia. Many countries whose laws are based on sharia do not have these horrific punishments on their books. The map in the following article indicates the wide variation in how 'sharia' is applied across the Muslim world. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_of_sharia_law_by_countryThe public was right to oppose Sharia Law. It would be like the friends insisting that the workers resolve civil disputes and family matters. Legal systems in the West have been improving for hundreds of years, so why go back to some religious text that is stuck in the seventh century? Secular societies should be governed by secular law. It would be like a bunch of Christians settling in a Muslim majority country and demanding to be governed by Biblical Law. Fat chance.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 26, 2015 0:20:07 GMT -5
"It is Islamophobia when you think every Muslim is going to kill you." Not every Muslim wants to kill us. But millions do.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 26, 2015 0:25:44 GMT -5
I also think that voluntarily curtailing blasphemous cartoons, not to mention, ethnic stereotypes, sexist and demeaning behaviour toward women, and racist speech, will all make the world a better place. Like you, I don't believe these kinds of expressions should be curtailed by means of laws. It's sexist and demeaning to consider a woman's testimony is worth half of a man's. Women's rights should be enshrined in law.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 26, 2015 0:36:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jan 26, 2015 3:18:04 GMT -5
And a woman only gets half the inheritance that her brother's do.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Jan 26, 2015 9:17:53 GMT -5
Lots of room for improvement, that's for sure. Shame on us, as it's been less than 100 years ago that women were even allowed to vote in Usa and Canada. Hopefully, the "radicals" don't get their wishes granted, and that we support and help in whatever way we can , the ones who oppose them. Of course, it depends on whose viewpoint one considers a "radical" Jesus would have been considered a radical by those who did not consider women as equal to men. I think the women of the day , and today appreciate a "radical" like him, who went against common thought, and considered women worthy of respect and honor, as equals. Alvin
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 26, 2015 9:37:21 GMT -5
I also think that voluntarily curtailing blasphemous cartoons, not to mention, ethnic stereotypes, sexist and demeaning behaviour toward women, and racist speech, will all make the world a better place. Like you, I don't believe these kinds of expressions should be curtailed by means of laws. It's sexist and demeaning to consider a woman's testimony is worth half of a man's. Women's rights should be enshrined in law. Of course, their rights should be enshrined in law. Where did that come from?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 26, 2015 9:39:37 GMT -5
"It is Islamophobia when you think every Muslim is going to kill you." Not every Muslim wants to kill us. But millions do. And there are 1,600 million Muslims. If there are 100 million Muslims that would like to kill us, then your comments are demeaning to the 1,500 million Muslims that mean no harm. Where is your sense of proportion? The problem is that an attitude such as yours leads to persecution of people who are innocent.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 26, 2015 9:47:26 GMT -5
The particular group I was speaking about , was in West Bank. Thanks for that info. I didn't know that. Another thing I found interesting was them telling me it was against their belief to pay or charge interest on a loan. One example of how this worked practically for them, was if they wanted to purchase a car , they would take the details to the bank or whoever was loaning them the money, and the bank would loan them the money interest free, but assess the car at a higher original cost, therefore the same effect as interest, but interest free. Maybe not quite as "tricky" as our car sales system , but pretty close. lol Alvin wiki says this about sharia law in West Bank- The Jordanian personal status law of 1976 is applied. The personal status law is based on Islamic law and regulates matters related to inheritance, marriage, divorce and child custody. Sharia courts hear cases related to personal status. The testimony of a woman is worth only half of that of a man in cases related to marriage, divorce and child custody.[77] I now see what 'fixit' is going on about with that 'half a man' thing. Women's rights are an issue across the Muslim world; not enough reason to drop bombs on them, IMO. As far as "no interest" the Muslims are quite ingenuous in terms of business investment as they cannot charge for a loan. From what I understand they tend to share profits with investors moreso than we do. Did you know that the Bible was commonly understood by Christians as being against interest also, until at least 1700 or so? Jews did not have this prohibition and so monarchs in need of funds often went to the Jewish world to finance their military campaigns and other projects. The stereotype of Jews as heartless usurers was established through figures such as Shylock in The Merchant of Venice.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 26, 2015 9:54:56 GMT -5
Right ... never mind the over 100,000 Iraqis killed since the Invasion; it's the film they are most upset about. (That's official body counts; other surveys list much higher tolls.) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_WarHere is one for you:
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Jan 26, 2015 10:01:06 GMT -5
Someone will have to shoot me to put me out of my reverie (archaic form).
So, I am sitting here thinking about earlier comments made regarding Western culture and about the sale of lethal weaponry to despots provided they sign an agreement saying they won’t use the weapons against their own people. Then Mary posts an update on the justice system of a particular Islamic sect and Rational reminds us of the similarity of this judicial code to that described in the Old Testament. And I begin to wonder . . . . . . . as citizens of the world embrace multiculturalism, what is a reasonable rate of change to expect for social evolution?
We have been at this game for what, maybe 70,000 years since the cognitive revolution and the early attempts to form stable social groups. For most of that time societies have had the luxury to “Go west young man, go west” as H. Greeley advised. But now there are no more “wide open spaces” within which social fission can operate.
So now what? Apartheid has been tried, wouldn’t recommend it.
Assimilation has been tried (actually seemed like a pretty rational choice to me) but the “powers that be” in this post-modern world tell us that is just suppression by another name.
So I guess we are down to living “cheek to jowl” in a great multi-cultural global community. Any other choices before we move on?
How is this going to work? We have this arbitrarily sized and shaped piece of geography, we shan’t give it a name because that might unleash the horrors of nationalism. All we have is this arbitrary space populated by diverse ethnic, cultural, religious and political persuasions. Without giving any preferences to any special interest, how are we going to make it work humanely, equitably, with love, compassion and happiness for all?
Remember, we are an evolved species just like every other creature. We have genes that will be expressed in one or more forms of dominance, like it or not. How can that fact be accommodated and still achieve a society in stable equilibrium?
We are all grown, mature, ethical and rational people, how do we avoid another “Je suis Charlie”?
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Jan 26, 2015 10:18:15 GMT -5
The particular group I was speaking about , was in West Bank. Thanks for that info. I didn't know that. Another thing I found interesting was them telling me it was against their belief to pay or charge interest on a loan. One example of how this worked practically for them, was if they wanted to purchase a car , they would take the details to the bank or whoever was loaning them the money, and the bank would loan them the money interest free, but assess the car at a higher original cost, therefore the same effect as interest, but interest free. Maybe not quite as "tricky" as our car sales system , but pretty close. lol Alvin wiki says this about sharia law in West Bank- The Jordanian personal status law of 1976 is applied. The personal status law is based on Islamic law and regulates matters related to inheritance, marriage, divorce and child custody. Sharia courts hear cases related to personal status. The testimony of a woman is worth only half of that of a man in cases related to marriage, divorce and child custody.[77] I now see what 'fixit' is going on about with that 'half a man' thing. Women's rights are an issue across the Muslim world; not enough reason to drop bombs on them, IMO. As far as "no interest" the Muslims are quite ingenuous in terms of business investment as they cannot charge for a loan. From what I understand they tend to share profits with investors moreso than we do. Did you know that the Bible was commonly understood by Christians as being against interest also, until at least 1700 or so? Jews did not have this prohibition and so monarchs in need of funds often went to the Jewish world to finance their military campaigns and other projects. The stereotype of Jews as heartless usurers was established through figures such as Shylock in The Merchant of Venice. . Interesting stuff. Some Christians also believe it is wrong to charge interest. It is not uncommon for holdeman mennonite to not charge interest on loans or collect interest on deposits. That was why Steinbach Credit Union here in Manitoba could offer loans for below prime to eligible customers. Alvin
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Jan 26, 2015 12:08:44 GMT -5
Someone will have to shoot me to put me out of my reverie (archaic form). ... We are all grown, mature, ethical and rational people, how do we avoid another “Je suis Charlie”? I don’t think we are all “grown, mature, ethical and rational people”. For the most part, I think this is still more of a social veneer than a deep transformative reality. But I have hope. To my mind, the whole process of life on this planet is set up so perfectly for human evolution. There is a large more or less stable population on this planet. Every day a small percentage of new human beings arrive on this planet. Every day a small percentage of human beings leave. I think of Max Planck “A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” I think this is somewhat true for any kind of idea. The tipping point for the spread of new ideas is really not that large. Minority Rules: Scientists Discover Tipping Point for the Spread of Ideas (http://news.rpi.edu/luwakkey/2902) I expect that this is true for more than ideas. What slows the rate of evolution/change is when, as individuals, we see all the things that "other people" could/should be doing – and are blind to the impact that a deep personal individual transformation could have on our world. I have hope. There may be many more “Je suis Charlies”, before we “get it”. But, as a species, I think we can. And if we don’t? Maybe that’s okay too.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 26, 2015 12:23:14 GMT -5
The particular group I was speaking about , was in West Bank. Thanks for that info. I didn't know that. Another thing I found interesting was them telling me it was against their belief to pay or charge interest on a loan. One example of how this worked practically for them, was if they wanted to purchase a car , they would take the details to the bank or whoever was loaning them the money, and the bank would loan them the money interest free, but assess the car at a higher original cost, therefore the same effect as interest, but interest free. Maybe not quite as "tricky" as our car sales system , but pretty close. lol Alvin wiki says this about sharia law in West Bank- The Jordanian personal status law of 1976 is applied. The personal status law is based on Islamic law and regulates matters related to inheritance, marriage, divorce and child custody. Sharia courts hear cases related to personal status. The testimony of a woman is worth only half of that of a man in cases related to marriage, divorce and child custody.[77] I now see what 'fixit' is going on about with that 'half a man' thing. Women's rights are an issue across the Muslim world; not enough reason to drop bombs on them, IMO. As far as "no interest" the Muslims are quite ingenuous in terms of business investment as they cannot charge for a loan. From what I understand they tend to share profits with investors moreso than we do. Did you know that the Bible was commonly understood by Christians as being against interest also, until at least 1700 or so? Jews did not have this prohibition and so monarchs in need of funds often went to the Jewish world to finance their military campaigns and other projects. The stereotype of Jews as heartless usurers was established through figures such as Shylock in The Merchant of Venice. In fact, the RCC maintained a closed enclave of sorts (Jews allowed out on church business) for centuries in the vicinity of Saint Peter's basilica to take care of church finances and to produce those shiny metal goblets and things they flash around in church services. All the while they were wanting to slaughter them for their profound wickedness. Muslims I know in Las Vegas refuse to accept interest from banks on their savings accounts.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 26, 2015 12:31:25 GMT -5
Someone will have to shoot me to put me out of my reverie (archaic form). ... We are all grown, mature, ethical and rational people, how do we avoid another “Je suis Charlie”? I don’t think we are all “grown, mature, ethical and rational people”. For the most part, I think this is still more of a social veneer than a deep transformative reality. But I have hope. To my mind, the whole process of life on this planet is set up so perfectly for human evolution. There is a large more or less stable population on this planet. Every day a small percentage new human beings arrive on this planet. Every day a small percentage of human beings leave. I think of Max Planck “A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” I think this is somewhat true for any kind of idea. The tipping point for the spread of new ideas is really not that large. Minority Rules: Scientists Discover Tipping Point for the Spread of Ideas (http://news.rpi.edu/luwakkey/2902) I expect that this is true for more than ideas. What slows the rate of evolution/change is when, as individuals, we see all the things that "other people" could/should be doing – and are blind to the impact that a deep personal individual transformation could have on our world. I have hope. There may be many more “Je suis Charlies”, before we “get it”. But, as a species, I think we can. And if we don’t? Maybe that’s okay too. The appreciated virtues of good fruit trees is not in the nature of the tree itself, but in the genetically modified characteristics grafted into them by human education. Wild fruit trees do perfectly well until humans aren't happy with crab apples.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 26, 2015 14:02:04 GMT -5
I now see what 'fixit' is going on about with that 'half a man' thing. Women's rights are an issue across the Muslim world; not enough reason to drop bombs on them, IMO. When you come up to speed on the issues you'll realise what a ridiculous statement you just made.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 26, 2015 15:13:31 GMT -5
I now see what 'fixit' is going on about with that 'half a man' thing. Women's rights are an issue across the Muslim world; not enough reason to drop bombs on them, IMO. When you come up to speed on the issues you'll realise what a ridiculous statement you just made. Well, fixit, here's your chance to bomb the US Capitol. They do not recognize women as undeserving of discrimination. Virtue starts at home.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 26, 2015 15:22:29 GMT -5
I now see what 'fixit' is going on about with that 'half a man' thing. Women's rights are an issue across the Muslim world; not enough reason to drop bombs on them, IMO. When you come up to speed on the issues you'll realise what a ridiculous statement you just made. So - (1) In pre-invasion Iraq when Iraq was under UN sanctions how many were killed by Hussein? (2) How does that number compare with friend and ally Saudi Arabia? (3) Explain to me how bombing and killing even more civilians would help with that? Incidentally, my comment wasn't meant universally. I'm in favour of military action against ISIS. I'm still not in favour of bombing as a method of improving women's rights.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 26, 2015 15:31:40 GMT -5
The idea that was floated here in Ontario was that 'sharia' would be used to resolve civil disputes and family matters only when a case was voluntarily submitted to a sharia tribunal. There was initial acceptance of the idea by the govt but the public reaction was so strong that the idea died a quick death. Based on that it would be important to understand what and where these students see sharia law being implemented. Implementation of sharia doesn't automatically imply strict punishments as are found in Saudi Arabia. Many countries whose laws are based on sharia do not have these horrific punishments on their books. The map in the following article indicates the wide variation in how 'sharia' is applied across the Muslim world. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_of_sharia_law_by_countryThe public was right to oppose Sharia Law. It would be like the friends insisting that the workers resolve civil disputes and family matters. Legal systems in the West have been improving for hundreds of years, so why go back to some religious text that is stuck in the seventh century? Secular societies should be governed by secular law. It would be like a bunch of Christians settling in a Muslim majority country and demanding to be governed by Biblical Law. Fat chance. I quite agree with you. I also oppose tax payer funded charter or religious schools, on the same principle. All for one, and one for all, when it comes to laws and publicly funded education. However ... an Islamic country has the perfect right to do things differently if that represents the will of the people, and there is no infringement of civil liberties or individual rights. It's difficult to imagine that individual rights could be preserved if sharia law replaces civil law. But integration of sharia law or voluntary arbitration using sharia law might be able to preserve individual liberties and rights in some countries. On these shores ... no.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Jan 26, 2015 16:14:25 GMT -5
I don’t think we are all “grown, mature, ethical and rational people”. For the most part, I think this is still more of a social veneer than a deep transformative reality. But I have hope. Agree. Just concerned for the grandkids and beyond, wish I could have done a better job.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Jan 26, 2015 16:52:35 GMT -5
There is a large more or less stable population on this planet. This, I struggle with. I fear that the population is not so stable (referring to the number of individuals in the population, not the mental state of those individuals). I harbor Malthusian fears, not so much about available resources (food, water, etc.) but rather social compatibility. It appears to me that the population growth is forcing the collisions of incompatible cultures. The consequences are seldom tidy. I think this is a critically important point as we look forward. Personal responsibility would seem to be an important virtue, if this were to work. The transition from acquisition to sustainability will be very difficult and complex but I believe doable. The intractable challenge will be the charismatic leader (priest, CEO or despot, so many variants, so little need). How do we keep those fellers from telling us what we "need to do"?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 26, 2015 16:54:38 GMT -5
I also oppose tax payer funded charter or religious schools, on the same principle. All for one, and one for all, when it comes to laws and publicly funded education. I think we're on the same page here. This raises another concern, perhaps outside the scope of this thread: Does the nation have a duty to protect it's children from religious brainwashing? Do parents have a right to religiously brainwash their children? Should someone like Jim Jones and the Temple Cult be allowed to open a religious school? What about Scientology? What about Catholic schools and Seventh Day Adventist schools? What about Islamic schools teaching kids jihad and hatred of our secular society? Do children raised in a secular society have a right to a secular education, or do parents have the right to have their children educated any way they please? Society tries to protect children from sexual abuse by their own families. Should it also try to protect children from brainwashing by their own families? I don't have the answers, I'm just asking the questions.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 26, 2015 16:59:40 GMT -5
I don’t think we are all “grown, mature, ethical and rational people”. For the most part, I think this is still more of a social veneer than a deep transformative reality. But I have hope. To my mind, the whole process of life on this planet is set up so perfectly for human evolution. There is a large more or less stable population on this planet. Every day a small percentage of new human beings arrive on this planet. Every day a small percentage of human beings leave. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sharon, I wish it were true that as you say, "that there is a large more or less stable population on this planet."
One of the biggest problems facing the world today in the elephant in the living room that everyone pretends isn't there, World Population.
There is Net gain of over 140 people every minute.
The net growth during my posting: fill in the blank______________ On the site that I found you can Click on the arrow to hear how fast population is growing.
At what time in history do you think the population of the world doubled?
It was later than you might think, about the time my first child was born, 1961.
|
|