101

Re: Sensible thought

Hello, v6, you wrote: LL>> Neither you, nor clericals will not breed. I simply read YOUR imaginations and I try to present process and yours in it a place. What do I do not so? v6> you Dream, reading my reasonings on possible ways for the state. Slogans any see, the report demand. I here am powerless. v6> if there will be matters of substance - is ready to consider, if are not present - dismiss. Well, in essence: perhaps one of them takes place the genius, and remaining are not necessary, let become an inveterate drunkard, idle, you are imprisoned etc. Whence it took?

102

Re: Sensible thought

Hello, v6, you wrote: D>> As we quickly passed that from the monetary poor to the mental poor. How it has something in common with words "to produce poverty"? How to define the mental poor? v6> anywhere did not pass, the term "cattle" figured from the very beginning. I answered these words: IT> about the state decisions so I to you will reveal secret - the state always solves Speech. In this case speech about stimulation. And so - I for that did not stimulate thus - since it will be stimulation of that produce poverty. And here cattle? Though if to consider a question of reproduction of cattle as we will measure this criterion? And the cattle happens both rich, and poor. Measurement on a monetary prosperity means disappears. Whereas to define cattle that?

103

Re: Sensible thought

Hello, L.Long, you wrote: v6>> If there will be matters of substance - is ready to consider, if are not present - dismiss. LL> well, in essence: LL> perhaps one of them takes place the genius, and remaining are not necessary, let become an inveterate drunkard, idle, you are imprisoned etc. LL> Whence it took? Sarcasm did not understand? Or really do not understand, what will be if strongly to increase birth rate?

104

Re: Sensible thought

Hello, L.Long, you wrote: LL> Well, in essence: LL> perhaps one of them takes place the genius, and remaining are not necessary, let become an inveterate drunkard, idle, you are imprisoned etc. LL> Whence it took? That already now is full of people "not claimed" which "were not inscribed in the market" - are occupied stupid, and occasionally and unnecessary operation, become an inveterate drunkard, idle, follow a crime way and so on. To demand in such situation  birth rate, knowing that the considerable part of people and their abilities, potential will be never claimed it is not correct. Here my judgement.

105

Re: Sensible thought

Hello, Denwer, you wrote: IT>> about the state decisions so I to you will reveal secret - the state always solves Speech. In this case speech about stimulation. And so - I for that did not stimulate thus - since it will be stimulation of that produce poverty. D> and here cattle? Though if to consider a question of reproduction of cattle as we will measure this criterion? And the cattle happens both rich, and poor. Measurement on a monetary prosperity means disappears. Whereas to define cattle that? About it I can tell the following: normal adequate people solve, how many and when it to get children. Both any priests and decrees cannot affect them. From here I do an output that announcements as at this clerical are directed first of all on the people who are not normal and adequate (we can apply carefully here the term "cattle") PS About a prosperity truly.

106

Re: Sensible thought

Hello, TG, you wrote: LL>> perhaps one of them takes place the genius, and remaining are not necessary, let become an inveterate drunkard, idle, are imprisoned etc. TG> Or really do not understand, what will be if strongly to increase birth rate? And from what all of you took, what the aforesaid will be mandatory? In India high birth rate, in Egypt - still above. In prisons there sits much less, than at us or in the USA. And to become an inveterate drunkard not especially hasten. In families of priests too it is normal  children and do not drink somehow especially.

107

Re: Sensible thought

Hello, Vedmed, you wrote: And how many it is necessary? 100 suffices? Perhaps, only it is necessary to take 100  families from all families with the capital of more than 1 yard of dollars (for example). Any Forbes-500 or something in such spirit.

108

Re: Sensible thought

Hello, the Laid-back person, you wrote: TG>> Or really do not understand, what will be if strongly to increase birth rate? And from what all of you took, what the aforesaid will be mandatory? In India high birth rate, in Egypt - still above. Excellent argument. Here to live as in India or Egypt very few people wants.

109

Re: Sensible thought

Hello, cheerysoft.com, you wrote: CC> Here such here a variant. Mine a sentence to dear Maxim Topilinu: - pierce condoms then birth rate will be as in Zimbabwe, well you will think, disease  and other  too will be as in Zimbabwe, but the plan on birth rate magnification fulfill. - at divinity lessons tell that condoms and other methods of safeguarding - a sin. - fan switch-offs el-va and heating well help. - for girls - 3 years of tserkovno-parish school to consider to thousand, to read and the signature learned to put - everything, became clever. - to restrict the Internet  that girls would not know as live abroad. (sarcasm) P.S. FOR the country terribly... A fuck-up, hair on end.

110

Re: Sensible thought

Hello, v6, you wrote: v6> Excellent argument. Here to live as in India or Egypt very few people wants. Live as in Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates, there birth rate still above.

111

Re: Sensible thought

Hello, TG, you wrote: TG> Sarcasm did not understand? I it here do not see. TG> or really do not understand, what will be if strongly to increase birth rate? And what, actually, will be? Birth rate in 50-s' we compare to the modern?

112

Re: Sensible thought

Hello, the Laid-back person, you wrote: v6>> Excellent argument. Here to live as in India or Egypt very few people wants. Live as in Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates, there birth rate still above. And whether there it is good that? Level of religious pressure in a society unhealthy it is perfect. The Middle Ages. But with skyscrapers and superpenalties.

113

Re: Sensible thought

Hello, Los Chtostrjaslos, you wrote: v6>> the Amusing statistics - superrich (Tsukerberg, for example) are often married to Asians. > Tsukerberg - the puppy against superrich Can also a puppy, certainly. But superrich. 5 a place , however.

114

Re: Sensible thought

Hello, L.Long, you wrote: LL> Practice, however, shows that the more the people earn, the give birth less. It is interesting that when the people start to receive less, to give birth any more do not begin. How to reduce these two statements together?

115

Re: Sensible thought

Hello, the Laid-back person, you wrote: absolutely reasonable city  generally to children does not give birth. For economically to give birth to children in a city not favourably. Why you put equality sign between a rationality and  ? Economically it is not favourable to go by own machine and to walk on coffee houses, however it happens everywhere.

116

Re: Sensible thought

Hello, v6, you wrote: v6> About it I can tell the following: normal adequate people solve, how many and when it to get children. Both any priests and decrees cannot affect them Generally the priest in the initial message suggests to remove the prohibition of early spoilage. He suggests to give to these people the right to decide to marry it or not while now other uncles with aunts decided that it it is impossible to marry. That is he suggests to increase freedom level, instead of to reduce

117

Re: Sensible thought

Hello, v6, you wrote: v6> Hello, L.Long, you wrote: LL>> Well, in essence: LL>> perhaps one of them takes place the genius, and remaining are not necessary, let become an inveterate drunkard, idle, you are imprisoned etc. LL>> Whence it took? v6> that already now is full of people "not claimed" which "were not inscribed in the market" - are occupied stupid, and occasionally and unnecessary operation, become an inveterate drunkard, idle, follow a crime way and so on. To demand in such situation  birth rate, knowing that the considerable part of people and their abilities, potential will be never claimed it is not correct. Here my judgement. And here such business - during any times, at any birth rate and any standard of well-being some number of people becomes drunks, addicts, parasites and criminals. And their relative amount in population is constant, with it there's nothing to be done. At more rigid public pressure they will be more or less disguised, but all of them equally will. It will be simple at their small birth rate in absolute numeration a little, but in relative - the same (conditionally) 10 % of the population.

118

Re: Sensible thought

Hello, Hobbes, you wrote: LL>> Practice, however, shows that the more the people earn, the give birth less. It is interesting that when the people start to receive less, to give birth any more do not begin. H> how to reduce these two statements together? What here to reduce? While demography the country in which there would be a reverse demographic passage is unknown. There is no precedent.

119

Re: Sensible thought

Hello, L.Long, you wrote: v6>> that already now is full of people "not claimed" which "were not inscribed in the market" - are occupied stupid, and occasionally and unnecessary operation, become an inveterate drunkard, idle, follow a crime way and so on. To demand in such situation  birth rate, knowing that the considerable part of people and their abilities, potential will be never claimed it is not correct. Here my judgement. LL> and here such business - during any times, at any birth rate and any standard of well-being some number of people becomes drunks, addicts, parasites and criminals. And their relative amount in population is constant, with it there's nothing to be done. At more rigid public pressure they will be more or less disguised, but all of them equally will. It will be simple at their small birth rate in absolute numeration a little, but in relative - the same (conditionally) 10 % of the population. Any percent always is, but it not a constant. Temporal or local impairments of a standard of living and demand of the person a society considerably change this number. I think, 90th years visually enough showed it.

120

Re: Sensible thought

Hello, Denwer, you wrote: D> That means to produce poverty? You whence know whom there will be the adult child who has grown in a poor family? It means that the probability of a failure is high, starting with statistics. D> how many children grew after war without fathers, lived from a loaf to a loaf and became outstanding scientists, doctors, inventors, designers. Well here think who you such and who for example Bokerija (the cardiologist which). And at us war and now a system - a socialism? Instead of solving a problem - offer simulacra in the form of early spoilage and the prohibition of abortions, and you and are glad that officials will solve "thus a problem", generating a heap of others.

121

Re: Sensible thought

Hello, Los Chtostrjaslos, you wrote: > the modern experience shows that increase of a standard of living leads to lowering of birth rate of the USA the beginnings of 20th century at an excellent standard of living had birth rate practically level . Finland now has  a gain at all because of migrants. Yes, it is difficult to receive a large gain, but at level of reproducibility of the population at desire - it is quite possible.

122

Re: Sensible thought

Hello, v6, you wrote: v6> If to the previous generations offered today's a prosperity, to pension, etc. - a horse-radish they so much children would get medicine, police, for simply it is not necessary. v6> the Big families were a survival question, instead of self-sacrifice themselves for the sake of descendants. If to leave all those relations what were between men and women, hardly. Though, probably, at men would appear more than other needs, than to strike with the wife and to stick in the field, and at women - means of contraception and pregnancy interruption, is would drift accent, as well as now.