So...what is wrong with just soap and a washrag???



If you've shopped for facial soap lately, chances are you've seen products with microbeads, tiny balls of plastic said to help exfoliate your skin. The beads have been detected in more than 200 different consumer products; most fall under the category of facial cleansers, but the beads also make their way into soaps, sunscreens, even toothpaste.

Manufacturers like them because they’re smoother than many natural exfoliants like salt, apricot pits, or walnut husks. And American consumers like them enough to buy cosmetics containing more than 573,000 pounds of them each year.

But there's a problem with microbeads.

http://www.motherjones.com/environme...cean-pollution

On Monday, September 9, 2013 9:58:06 AM UTC-4, ImStillMags wrote:
> So...what is wrong with just soap and a washrag???
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Wow, what a surprise, big business found another way to screw up our earth.

On 9/9/2013 9:58 AM, ImStillMags wrote:
> So...what is wrong with just soap and a washrag???
>
>
>
> If you've shopped for facial soap lately, chances are you've seen products with microbeads, tiny balls of plastic said to help exfoliate your skin. The beads have been detected in more than 200 different consumer products; most fall under the category of facial cleansers, but the beads also make their way into soaps, sunscreens, even toothpaste.
>
> Manufacturers like them because they’re smoother than many natural exfoliants like salt, apricot pits, or walnut husks. And American consumers like them enough to buy cosmetics containing more than 573,000 pounds of them each year.
>
> But there's a problem with microbeads.
>
> http://www.motherjones.com/environme...cean-pollution
>

They will probably end up in the fish we eat. Probably inert and not
harmful to ingest, but that are of no value to us and potentially
damaging to seafood. I certainly don't see a need for them when less
harmful products exist.

Greenpeace, Mayor Bloomberg et al -- are you listening? Next thing to ban?

Baking soda becomes a decent exfoliant and the price is right too.

On 2013-09-09 9:58 AM, ImStillMags wrote:
> So...what is wrong with just soap and a washrag???
>
>
>
> If you've shopped for facial soap lately, chances are you've seen
> products with microbeads, tiny balls of plastic said to help
> exfoliate your skin. The beads have been detected in more than 200
> different consumer products; most fall under the category of facial
> cleansers, but the beads also make their way into soaps, sunscreens,
> even toothpaste.
>
> Manufacturers like them because they’re smoother than many natural
> exfoliants like salt, apricot pits, or walnut husks. And American
> consumers like them enough to buy cosmetics containing more than
> 573,000 pounds of them each year.
>
> But there's a problem with microbeads.
>



I was surprised that there was not a bigger issue made of tampon
launchers. The first time I saw an ocean for real was in the early
1980s and I was surprised to see so many of those little plastic tubes
washed up on shore.

On 9/9/2013 9:58 AM, ImStillMags wrote:
> So...what is wrong with just soap and a washrag???
>
I don't even bother with the washrag. My face doesn't need to be
"scrubbed". I just wash my face with mild soap & water and splash it
off with water, using my hands.

> But there's a problem with microbeads.
>
> http://www.motherjones.com/environme...cean-pollution
>
Sugar is also an excellent exfoliant. I learned that trick as a
teenager. Funny, my skin didn't need exfoliating when I was 16.

I occasionally use St. Ives apricot scrub. No microbeads there. The
exfoliant is crushed apricot seeds.

http://www.stives.com/Natural-Ingredient/Apricot/

Then there is olive oil, which is a great moisturizer. I'm not talking
about putting extra-virgin olive oil on your face. Olive oil based
facial cleanser and moisturizers.

An oatmeal bath will help if you have itchy skin. Colloidal oatmeal,
not the stuff you eat. Especially in the winter, when it is necessary
to run the heat, my skin tends to dry out. I use an oatmeal-based lotion.

Jill

On 9/9/2013 11:07 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2013-09-09 9:58 AM, ImStillMags wrote:
>> So...what is wrong with just soap and a washrag???
>>
>>
>>
>> If you've shopped for facial soap lately, chances are you've seen
>> products with microbeads, tiny balls of plastic said to help
>> exfoliate your skin. The beads have been detected in more than 200
>> different consumer products; most fall under the category of facial
>> cleansers, but the beads also make their way into soaps, sunscreens,
>> even toothpaste.
>>
>> Manufacturers like them because they’re smoother than many natural
>> exfoliants like salt, apricot pits, or walnut husks. And American
>> consumers like them enough to buy cosmetics containing more than
>> 573,000 pounds of them each year.
>>
>> But there's a problem with microbeads.
>>
>
> I was surprised that there was not a bigger issue made of tampon
> launchers.

Ahem. They're called "applicators". LOL

The first time I saw an ocean for real was in the early
> 1980s and I was surprised to see so many of those little plastic tubes
> washed up on shore.
>
That's a horrific memory for your first time at the beach!

TMI, but I never used a plastic applicator. They were made of
cardboard. And an applicator wasn't essential. There was (is?) a brand
where you just shove it up there and... you get the TMI picture. LOL

Thankfully I haven't had any need for them for years. Early menopause
was a blessing.

Jill

Jill,
I have read that those apricot nut slivers can cause microscopic tears in the skin, leaving it open to infection, maybe. Yer better off with the salt, sugar or baking soda.

About the launchers: I got a laugh out of that too. That said, all the micro beads and launchers in the world prob. aren't as bad as disposable diapers filling our landfills, not to mention the slobs who just leave em in a parking lot.

Let's face it - we are too many people fouling a too small nest. Where will the breaking point be?

On 9/9/2013 11:50 AM, Kalmia wrote:
> Jill,
> I have read that those apricot nut slivers can cause microscopic tears in the skin, leaving it open to infection, maybe.

Hmmm, I've never had that problem. Then again, I only use it on
occasionally. I mostly use just clear soap and water.

Yer better off with the salt, sugar or baking soda.
>
Yer? LOL I don't really have a need to exfoliate. I've got good skin
for my age. Barely a wrinkle.

> About the launchers: I got a laugh out of that too. That said, all the micro beads and launchers in the world prob.
aren't as bad as disposable diapers filling our landfills, not to
mention the slobs who just leave em in a parking lot.
>
Lord knows, when I worked in retail women would change their baby's
diapers in the fitting rooms. They'd leave that stinky mess for me to
pick up and dispose of. This was before most ladies' room had those
fold-down "changing tables".

> Let's face it - we are too many people fouling a too small nest. Where will the breaking point be?
>
I agree about too many people. Some folks just procreate without even
thinking about it. By the time the planet reaches the breaking point,
I'm pretty sure I'll be dead.

Jill

"ImStillMags" > wrote in message
...
So...what is wrong with just soap and a washrag???



If you've shopped for facial soap lately, chances are you've seen products
with microbeads, tiny balls of plastic said to help exfoliate your skin. The
beads have been detected in more than 200 different consumer products; most
fall under the category of facial cleansers, but the beads also make their
way into soaps, sunscreens, even toothpaste.

Manufacturers like them because they’re smoother than many natural
exfoliants like salt, apricot pits, or walnut husks. And American consumers
like them enough to buy cosmetics containing more than 573,000 pounds of
them each year.

But there's a problem with microbeads.

http://www.motherjones.com/environme...cean-pollution

----
I can remember reading when I was a teen not to use walnut husks because
they could scratch your skin. I found this to be true. I made my own scrub
with cornmeal and honey. Add lemon juice for oily skin, avocado for dry.

As an adult I tried oatmeal. Worked fine but didn't go down the drain so
well.

Then I switched to salt. Even cheap salt will work although some swear by
sea salt. I do have a bar of sea salt that works just fine. Otherwise I
mix the salt with some water, perhaps a drop or two of oil, and the same
with essential oil if I want scent. Or I just use my body wash and a brush.
No need for beads.

"Kalmia" > wrote in message
...
> Greenpeace, Mayor Bloomberg et al -- are you listening? Next thing to
> ban?
>
> Baking soda becomes a decent exfoliant and the price is right too.

That works too. My friend told me of something to use for acne. I can't
remember exactly the procedure now. I think you first put on milk of
magnesia, let dry. then scrubbed it off with baking soda, then applied
peroxide.

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> On 9/9/2013 11:07 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 2013-09-09 9:58 AM, ImStillMags wrote:
>>> So...what is wrong with just soap and a washrag???
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If you've shopped for facial soap lately, chances are you've seen
>>> products with microbeads, tiny balls of plastic said to help
>>> exfoliate your skin. The beads have been detected in more than 200
>>> different consumer products; most fall under the category of facial
>>> cleansers, but the beads also make their way into soaps, sunscreens,
>>> even toothpaste.
>>>
>>> Manufacturers like them because they’re smoother than many natural
>>> exfoliants like salt, apricot pits, or walnut husks. And American
>>> consumers like them enough to buy cosmetics containing more than
>>> 573,000 pounds of them each year.
>>>
>>> But there's a problem with microbeads.
>>>
>>
>> I was surprised that there was not a bigger issue made of tampon
>> launchers.
>
> Ahem. They're called "applicators". LOL
>
> The first time I saw an ocean for real was in the early
>> 1980s and I was surprised to see so many of those little plastic tubes
>> washed up on shore.
>>
> That's a horrific memory for your first time at the beach!
>
> TMI, but I never used a plastic applicator. They were made of cardboard.
> And an applicator wasn't essential. There was (is?) a brand where you
> just shove it up there and... you get the TMI picture. LOL
>
> Thankfully I haven't had any need for them for years. Early menopause was
> a blessing.

They still make non applicator. The smallest ones are great for a nosebleed
that won't stop.

Condoms are another thing we saw on the beach on Staten Island. Those and
syringes. I also found tampon applicators in my yard. That was pretty
disgusting. Apparently some teens were cutting through the woods behind my
house and having parties there. There was no bathroom around my house. I
think (but am not sure) there was a bathroom in the picnic area closer to
the beach but it was likely not open at night.

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> On 9/9/2013 9:58 AM, ImStillMags wrote:
>> So...what is wrong with just soap and a washrag???
>>
> I don't even bother with the washrag. My face doesn't need to be
> "scrubbed". I just wash my face with mild soap & water and splash it off
> with water, using my hands.
>
>> But there's a problem with microbeads.
>>
>> http://www.motherjones.com/environme...cean-pollution
>>
> Sugar is also an excellent exfoliant. I learned that trick as a teenager.
> Funny, my skin didn't need exfoliating when I was 16.
>
> I occasionally use St. Ives apricot scrub. No microbeads there. The
> exfoliant is crushed apricot seeds.
>
> http://www.stives.com/Natural-Ingredient/Apricot/
>
> Then there is olive oil, which is a great moisturizer. I'm not talking
> about putting extra-virgin olive oil on your face. Olive oil based facial
> cleanser and moisturizers.
>
> An oatmeal bath will help if you have itchy skin. Colloidal oatmeal, not
> the stuff you eat. Especially in the winter, when it is necessary to run
> the heat, my skin tends to dry out. I use an oatmeal-based lotion.
>
> Jill

Just be careful with the oatmeal! It can make for a very slippery tub. I
had used it countless times with no problems. Then I used it again and
could not get out of the tub! I don't know if I used a bit much or what.
Feet just kept slipping out from under me. I had to wait until the tub
fully drained and still couldn't get out. Not all of the oatmeal went down
the drain. I wound up having to throw towels in the tub and stepping on
those. Then I had to wash them because they were covered with oats. I
remember reading a story about a woman who had this happen to her and I
couldn't believe it. Until it happened to me!

"Kalmia" > wrote in message
...
> Jill,
> I have read that those apricot nut slivers can cause microscopic tears in
> the skin, leaving it open to infection, maybe. Yer better off with the
> salt, sugar or baking soda.
>
> About the launchers: I got a laugh out of that too. That said, all the
> micro beads and launchers in the world prob. aren't as bad as disposable
> diapers filling our landfills, not to mention the slobs who just leave em
> in a parking lot.
>
> Let's face it - we are too many people fouling a too small nest. Where
> will the breaking point be?

We were driving down the highway a couple of days ago and saw what looked
like a recycle bin that exploded. At least the stuff will biodegrade but...
There were papers everywhere! Didn't seem to be all the same thing either
so we couldn't fathom it. There were several large piles in the double turn
lane but they extended over into my lane, the lanes going the other way and
even some yards. The papers went on for a couple of blocks.

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> On 9/9/2013 11:50 AM, Kalmia wrote:
>> Jill,
>> I have read that those apricot nut slivers can cause microscopic tears in
>> the skin, leaving it open to infection, maybe.
>
> Hmmm, I've never had that problem. Then again, I only use it on
> occasionally. I mostly use just clear soap and water.
>
> Yer better off with the salt, sugar or baking soda.
>>
> Yer? LOL I don't really have a need to exfoliate. I've got good skin for
> my age. Barely a wrinkle.
>
>> About the launchers: I got a laugh out of that too. That said, all the
>> micro beads and launchers in the world prob.
> aren't as bad as disposable diapers filling our landfills, not to mention
> the slobs who just leave em in a parking lot.
>>
> Lord knows, when I worked in retail women would change their baby's
> diapers in the fitting rooms. They'd leave that stinky mess for me to
> pick up and dispose of. This was before most ladies' room had those
> fold-down "changing tables".

I don't remember ever seeing a diaper in the fitting rooms. But people used
furniture to change them on and would leave them right there. We also sold
file cabinets and metal storage closets. They often put those and used
menstrual pads in there. I don't think anyone ever saw anyone put them in
there but we would sure find them in there. Got to be where if someone
wanted to buy a display, we would take it aside and check it first. Was
almost always something nasty in there.
>
>> Let's face it - we are too many people fouling a too small nest. Where
>> will the breaking point be?
>>
> I agree about too many people. Some folks just procreate without even
> thinking about it. By the time the planet reaches the breaking point, I'm
> pretty sure I'll be dead.

Could be.

On Monday, September 9, 2013 11:50:34 AM UTC-4, Kalmia wrote:
> Let's face it - we are too many people fouling a too small nest. Where will the breaking point be?

Was in 2011. Fukushima.

On 9/10/2013 7:30 AM, Thomas wrote:
> On Monday, September 9, 2013 11:50:34 AM UTC-4, Kalmia wrote:
>> Let's face it - we are too many people fouling a too small nest. Where will the breaking point be?
>
> Was in 2011. Fukushima.
>
What is it they're sending into the sea every day, 80 tons of
radioactive matter?

Walnut husks are excellent for use as a "sand blaster"/paint remover. Lots of auto body shops use them, along with furniture refinishers.

N.

On Mon, 9 Sep 2013 08:50:34 -0700 (PDT), Kalmia
> wrote:


>Let's face it - we are too many people fouling a too small nest. Where will the breaking point be?

Nearly every significant problem we face is due to overpopulation.

Where will the breaking point will be is a good question... we are
still a *long* way from the point where most people will accept that
we can't keep on breeding at the rate that we currently are, or even
giving it a second's thought for that matter.

On 2013-09-10 3:53 PM, Jeßus wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Sep 2013 08:50:34 -0700 (PDT), Kalmia
> > wrote:
>
>
>> Let's face it - we are too many people fouling a too small nest. Where will the breaking point be?
>
> Nearly every significant problem we face is due to overpopulation.
>
> Where will the breaking point will be is a good question... we are
> still a *long* way from the point where most people will accept that
> we can't keep on breeding at the rate that we currently are, or even
> giving it a second's thought for that matter.
>

The unfortunate thing about it is that those of us who have demonstrated
the ability to take care of ourselves have come to realize that there is
population growth problem have taken steps to deal with it. Most people
in the developed world have stopped having large families, limiting
themselves to 1-2 children. Meanwhile, those in the poorest and most
densely populated countries are still having large families.you have to
wonder when you see coverage of famine relief project and see people
coming in with 12 or more half starved kids. We constantly see scenes of
huge families of scrawny, underfed kids. If they can't feed the kids
they have they should not have more.

On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 1:25:52 PM UTC-7, Dave Smith wrote:

> The unfortunate thing about it is that those of us who have demonstrated
>
> the ability to take care of ourselves have come to realize that there is
>
> population growth problem have taken steps to deal with it. Most people
>
> in the developed world have stopped having large families, limiting
>
> themselves to 1-2 children. Meanwhile, those in the poorest and most
>
> densely populated countries are still having large families.you have to
>
> wonder when you see coverage of famine relief project and see people
>
> coming in with 12 or more half starved kids. We constantly see scenes of
>
> huge families of scrawny, underfed kids. If they can't feed the kids
>
> they have they should not have more.


Unfortunately most of those are uneducated and tied to either a religion or belief system that prevents any usage of contracepton.....or they have no idea about contracepton. In many areas a lot of children means more hands to do the work.

On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 05:53:06 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:

> On Mon, 9 Sep 2013 08:50:34 -0700 (PDT), Kalmia
> > wrote:
>
>
> >Let's face it - we are too many people fouling a too small nest. Where will the breaking point be?
>
> Nearly every significant problem we face is due to overpopulation.
>
> Where will the breaking point will be is a good question... we are
> still a *long* way from the point where most people will accept that
> we can't keep on breeding at the rate that we currently are, or even
> giving it a second's thought for that matter.

So we really do need a WWIII or a huge plague. I thought AIDS was
going to be the one, but modern medicine worked on it faster than I
expected.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 16:25:52 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> If they can't feed the kids
> they have they should not have more.

How can they if they are not educated about over population and have
no access to birth control?

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 16:25:52 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2013-09-10 3:53 PM, Jeßus wrote:
>> On Mon, 9 Sep 2013 08:50:34 -0700 (PDT), Kalmia
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Let's face it - we are too many people fouling a too small nest. Where will the breaking point be?
>>
>> Nearly every significant problem we face is due to overpopulation.
>>
>> Where will the breaking point will be is a good question... we are
>> still a *long* way from the point where most people will accept that
>> we can't keep on breeding at the rate that we currently are, or even
>> giving it a second's thought for that matter.
>
>The unfortunate thing about it is that those of us who have demonstrated
>the ability to take care of ourselves have come to realize that there is
>population growth problem have taken steps to deal with it. Most people
>in the developed world have stopped having large families, limiting
>themselves to 1-2 children. Meanwhile, those in the poorest and most
>densely populated countries are still having large families.you have to
>wonder when you see coverage of famine relief project and see people
>coming in with 12 or more half starved kids. We constantly see scenes of
>huge families of scrawny, underfed kids. If they can't feed the kids
>they have they should not have more.

You've touched on a serious problem there - and as callus as it
sounds, I sometimes wonder if we are really helping by feeding these
starving people, for precisely the reasons you outlined.

There is a famine... many people starve and die. Rest of the world
comes to their aid, the famine passes... and they breed up again, and
so the cycle begins again. Clearly the land cannot support the
population base. Simple as that.

On 2013-09-10 5:26 PM, sf wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 16:25:52 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>> If they can't feed the kids
>> they have they should not have more.
>
> How can they if they are not educated about over population and have
> no access to birth control?
>


It isn't always about lack of access to birth control. If they are too
stupid to figure it out and they keep reproducing, and reproducing more
of their own mentality,I can't get too excited about supporting them.
Think about the repercussions of the smartest, best educated and most
capable people having the lowest birth rates while the dumbest, least
educated and least capable of taking care of themselves are their
offspring are reproducing at 5 times that rate.

On 9/10/2013 3:25 PM, sf wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 05:53:06 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 9 Sep 2013 08:50:34 -0700 (PDT), Kalmia
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Let's face it - we are too many people fouling a too small nest. Where will the breaking point be?
>>
>> Nearly every significant problem we face is due to overpopulation.
>>
>> Where will the breaking point will be is a good question... we are
>> still a *long* way from the point where most people will accept that
>> we can't keep on breeding at the rate that we currently are, or even
>> giving it a second's thought for that matter.
>
> So we really do need a WWIII or a huge plague. I thought AIDS was
> going to be the one, but modern medicine worked on it faster than I
> expected.
>
And don't forget Ebola, that was supposed to be a possible extinction
plague as well.

I think if Fukushima isn't contained, that might come as closed as
anything since the last big meteorite strikes near the Tertiary period.

On 9/10/2013 6:00 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2013-09-10 5:26 PM, sf wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 16:25:52 -0400, Dave Smith
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> If they can't feed the kids
>>> they have they should not have more.
>>
>> How can they if they are not educated about over population and have
>> no access to birth control?
>
> It isn't always about lack of access to birth control. If they are too
> stupid to figure it out and they keep reproducing, and reproducing more
> of their own mentality,I can't get too excited about supporting them.
> Think about the repercussions of the smartest, best educated and most
> capable people having the lowest birth rates while the dumbest, least
> educated and least capable of taking care of themselves are their
> offspring are reproducing at 5 times that rate.

That's the point, Dave. They either don't know any better or they have
religious beliefs/restrictions. Even setting that aside, do you think
they can just run to the corner drugstore to buy condoms or whatever?

I'm jumping out of this discussion for the moment. Because while I
appreciate your point, I don't think it's practical.

Jill

On 2013-09-10 7:03 PM, jmcquown wrote:

> That's the point, Dave. They either don't know any better or they have
> religious beliefs/restrictions. Even setting that aside, do you think
> they can just run to the corner drugstore to buy condoms or whatever?
>
> I'm jumping out of this discussion for the moment. Because while I
> appreciate your point, I don't think it's practical.
>


I appreciate that. IMO, They are pretty well hopeless. I prefer that
Darwin deal with it. I see little value in supporting them in their
self-destructive behaviour and bailing them out only to be dragged down
to their level of existence.

On 9/10/2013 7:36 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2013-09-10 7:03 PM, jmcquown wrote:
>
>> That's the point, Dave. They either don't know any better or they have
>> religious beliefs/restrictions. Even setting that aside, do you think
>> they can just run to the corner drugstore to buy condoms or whatever?
>>
>> I'm jumping out of this discussion for the moment. Because while I
>> appreciate your point, I don't think it's practical.
>>
>
>
> I appreciate that. IMO, They are pretty well hopeless. I prefer that
> Darwin deal with it. I see little value in supporting them in their
> self-destructive behaviour and bailing them out only to be dragged down
> to their level of existence.
>
Ever hear of this (RIP) US comedian? Sam Kinison. Here's what he said
about feeding world hunger:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0q4o58pKwA

Funny, he had a point.

Jill

On 9/10/2013 5:26 PM, sf wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 16:25:52 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>> If they can't feed the kids
>> they have they should not have more.
>
> How can they if they are not educated about over population and have
> no access to birth control?
>

In some societies it is a status symbol to have fathered kids with many
women and the women want to have a baby, just like their classmates.
They have access, but do not want to use birth control. You have to
change attitudes.

On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 16:25:52 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2013-09-10 3:53 PM, Jeßus wrote:
>> On Mon, 9 Sep 2013 08:50:34 -0700 (PDT), Kalmia
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Let's face it - we are too many people fouling a too small nest. Where will the breaking point be?
>>
>> Nearly every significant problem we face is due to overpopulation.
>>
>> Where will the breaking point will be is a good question... we are
>> still a *long* way from the point where most people will accept that
>> we can't keep on breeding at the rate that we currently are, or even
>> giving it a second's thought for that matter.
>>
>
>The unfortunate thing about it is that those of us who have demonstrated
>the ability to take care of ourselves have come to realize that there is
>population growth problem have taken steps to deal with it. Most people
>in the developed world have stopped having large families, limiting
>themselves to 1-2 children. Meanwhile, those in the poorest and most
>densely populated countries are still having large families.you have to
>wonder when you see coverage of famine relief project and see people
>coming in with 12 or more half starved kids. We constantly see scenes of
>huge families of scrawny, underfed kids. If they can't feed the kids
>they have they should not have more.

Unfortunately in those countries there are cultural pressures to breed
and often no or little access to birth control.

I am constantly amazed that half starved women in these countries are
still able to conceive. In developed countries a woman's menstrual
cycle will shut down if she starves herself (anorexia) or even if she
is superfit (elite athletes).

JB

On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 18:00:38 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2013-09-10 5:26 PM, sf wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 16:25:52 -0400, Dave Smith
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> If they can't feed the kids
>>> they have they should not have more.
>>
>> How can they if they are not educated about over population and have
>> no access to birth control?
>>
>
>
<snip>

>Think about the repercussions of the smartest, best educated and most
>capable people having the lowest birth rates while the dumbest, least
>educated and least capable of taking care of themselves are their
>offspring are reproducing at 5 times that rate.

That is still happening in developed countries too. Think about your
own country. Who is having the most children? The result is a large
proportion of the population that are uneducated, uncouth and quite
prepared to live off crime or the public purse. I know this is
happening in my country.

In a different time this sector of the population was gainfully
employed in factories etc. Those jobs no longer exist in developed
countries.

JB

On 9/10/2013 9:18 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

>> How can they if they are not educated about over population and have
>> no access to birth control?
>>
>
> In some societies it is a status symbol to have fathered kids with many
> women and the women want to have a baby, just like their classmates.
> They have access, but do not want to use birth control. You have to
> change attitudes.



Coincidentally, many of those baby mamas end up on welfare and their
kids don't usually amount to much. They are more likely to end up on
welfare or in the criminal justice system.

On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 20:13:01 -0400, jmcquown >
wrote:

>On 9/10/2013 7:36 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 2013-09-10 7:03 PM, jmcquown wrote:
>>
>>> That's the point, Dave. They either don't know any better or they have
>>> religious beliefs/restrictions. Even setting that aside, do you think
>>> they can just run to the corner drugstore to buy condoms or whatever?
>>>
>>> I'm jumping out of this discussion for the moment. Because while I
>>> appreciate your point, I don't think it's practical.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I appreciate that. IMO, They are pretty well hopeless. I prefer that
>> Darwin deal with it. I see little value in supporting them in their
>> self-destructive behaviour and bailing them out only to be dragged down
>> to their level of existence.
>>
>Ever hear of this (RIP) US comedian? Sam Kinison. Here's what he said
>about feeding world hunger:
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0q4o58pKwA
>
>Funny, he had a point.

Yeah, I remember that

On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 09:37:36 +0800, JBurns >
wrote:

>That is still happening in developed countries too. Think about your
>own country. Who is having the most children? The result is a large
>proportion of the population that are uneducated, uncouth and quite
>prepared to live off crime or the public purse. I know this is
>happening in my country.

Yes, the 'baby bonus'... I call it the Harvey Norman voucher.

On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 18:00:38 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> On 2013-09-10 5:26 PM, sf wrote:
> > On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 16:25:52 -0400, Dave Smith
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> If they can't feed the kids
> >> they have they should not have more.
> >
> > How can they if they are not educated about over population and have
> > no access to birth control?
> >
>
>
> It isn't always about lack of access to birth control. If they are too
> stupid to figure it out and they keep reproducing, and reproducing more
> of their own mentality,I can't get too excited about supporting them.
> Think about the repercussions of the smartest, best educated and most
> capable people having the lowest birth rates while the dumbest, least
> educated and least capable of taking care of themselves are their
> offspring are reproducing at 5 times that rate.

I will agree to that attitude when it comes to Americans, but I won't
if you're talking about citizens of the third world.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 16:26:50 -0600, casa contenta > wrote:

> On 9/10/2013 3:25 PM, sf wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 05:53:06 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 9 Sep 2013 08:50:34 -0700 (PDT), Kalmia
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Let's face it - we are too many people fouling a too small nest. Where will the breaking point be?
> >>
> >> Nearly every significant problem we face is due to overpopulation.
> >>
> >> Where will the breaking point will be is a good question... we are
> >> still a *long* way from the point where most people will accept that
> >> we can't keep on breeding at the rate that we currently are, or even
> >> giving it a second's thought for that matter.
> >
> > So we really do need a WWIII or a huge plague. I thought AIDS was
> > going to be the one, but modern medicine worked on it faster than I
> > expected.
> >
> And don't forget Ebola, that was supposed to be a possible extinction
> plague as well.
>
> I think if Fukushima isn't contained, that might come as closed as
> anything since the last big meteorite strikes near the Tertiary period.
>
You might be correct. Either that or we'll all glow in the dark.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On 9/11/2013 2:55 AM, Jeßus wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 09:37:36 +0800, JBurns >
> wrote:
>
>> That is still happening in developed countries too. Think about your
>> own country. Who is having the most children? The result is a large
>> proportion of the population that are uneducated, uncouth and quite
>> prepared to live off crime or the public purse. I know this is
>> happening in my country.
>
> Yes, the 'baby bonus'... I call it the Harvey Norman voucher.
>
Unless things have changed, in my state you do not get additional
money for children you have after being on welfare and you must
attend job training. I believe other states have done the same.

nancy

In article >,
Dave Smith > wrote:
>On 2013-09-10 5:26 PM, sf wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 16:25:52 -0400, Dave Smith
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> If they can't feed the kids
>>> they have they should not have more.
>>
>> How can they if they are not educated about over population and have
>> no access to birth control?
>>
>
>
>It isn't always about lack of access to birth control. If they are too
>stupid to figure it out and they keep reproducing, and reproducing more
>of their own mentality,I can't get too excited about supporting them.
>Think about the repercussions of the smartest, best educated and most
>capable people having the lowest birth rates while the dumbest, least
>educated and least capable of taking care of themselves are their
>offspring are reproducing at 5 times that rate.

You do know you're talking about societies where women pretty much
can't say "Not tonight, dear; I'm fertile", don't you?
The husband would just smack them around and, um, exercise his "rights".

Cindy Hamilton
--

On 2013-09-11 9:21 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:

>>
>> It isn't always about lack of access to birth control. If they are too
>> stupid to figure it out and they keep reproducing, and reproducing more
>> of their own mentality,I can't get too excited about supporting them.
>> Think about the repercussions of the smartest, best educated and most
>> capable people having the lowest birth rates while the dumbest, least
>> educated and least capable of taking care of themselves are their
>> offspring are reproducing at 5 times that rate.
>
> You do know you're talking about societies where women pretty much
> can't say "Not tonight, dear; I'm fertile", don't you?
> The husband would just smack them around and, um, exercise his "rights".

Of course there is no chance that the woman is just as horny and doesn't
care if she gets pregnant again. Either way, it is a culture and
mindset that we can try to save from starvation or...... let it meet its
inevitable consequences. I don't want to be made to feel guilty for a
situation that is entirely their doing.