We Need More Kids

[DBT]

Thought and ideas become code....and what is this code used for? What does it do? What is its purpose?

I'd say you get paid, not merely for thinking, but for the practical applications that some but not all of your thoughts produce.

Sure, you say that. But as your evidence here (bolded above) is an appeal to ignorance, why should anyone agree with you?

The answer to your questions (in a modern developed society) is largely that it enables other people to do more thinking, for which they too are paid.

And of course, many of the ultimate "practical applications" of thinking (where there even is one) use zero resources - or even reduce the use of resources.

For example, someone who comes up with a better way to forecast storms at sea, the economic consequence of which is that ships and cargoes are not lost, and need not be replaced; Or someone who thinks up a new way to sort recycleable materials from garbage that currently goes to landfill; Or someone who comes up with a way to extract more metal from ore, or to extract it using using less energy. All ways in which thinking can reduce resource consumption.

Your inability to imagine something might feel like evidence that that thing does not exist, but it really isn't. It's just evidence that your imagination isn't as good as you think it is.

One of the key features of a developed economy is efficiency - the accomplishment of the same ends with less use of resources. These efficiencies result from innovation - ie 'thinking'.

The coding question was rhetorical. The point is that nobody pays for thoughts that have no practical value, therefore offer no improvements to the running of a business.

The use of less resources may be achieved by a business through increasing efficiency, improving systems and practices, etc, but the point here is the push to grow the economy, and growth in the economy cannot be achieved without increasing overall resource use.

For instance;

Abstract​

On a global scale, resource restrictions are obvious, which makes recycling a necessity. Considering this, it is necessary to approach the connection between economic growth and resource consumption, the approach to such a complex issue highlights the importance of the recovery and reintroduction of resources into the economic circuit. Therefore, the activity of their recovery and valorisation are of particular importance, given the increasing dependence of economic growth on the import of raw materials. Economic growth and technological progress are the main factors that lead to resource consumption.

High use of resources creates pressures like the depletion of non-renewable resources and the strong use of renewable ones, transport and activities that include mining which cause important emissions to soil, air and water.


This chapter challenges the so-called environmental Kuznets curve and explains why we can extrapolate from the laws of thermodynamics that perpetual economic growth on a planet with finite resources is impossible. In the long run economic growth cannot be sustainable.

Anyone who believes that exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.

Kenneth E. Boulding (1973) (quoted from Jackson & Victor, 2019: 950).

 

[bigfield]

Why does it matter how many layers there are between a thought or idea and its practical application?

 

[thebeave]

In case you are wondering why women are opting out of motherhood:

Phoenix police rescue baby left alone for days after mother dies

A baby who was left alone for days in a Phoenix apartment after the infant's mother died was rescued by police officers.

www.cbsnews.com

Headline reads:

Phoenix police rescue baby left alone for days after mother dies​

A baby who was left alone for days in a Phoenix, Arizona, apartment was rescued by police officers last month after the infant's mother had died, officials said Friday.

Phoenix police said they received a call from a neighbor on the morning of May 14 to check on a woman who had recently given birth, but who had not been heard from for several days.

So, a new mother, recently having given birth and apparently at home alone with a newborn DIES and the headline is still that the baby was left alone. Like the mother went out partying.

The headline should have read that new mother dies because she did not receive the necessary post partum care she needed. But nope.

Women are NOT getting the support they need to survive pregnancy and childbirth, much less raise a child decently and they are still blamed.

In case you missed the news, the maternal death rate in the US is rising. This, btw, includes well educated women and women who are well off and who are not medically ignorant. These include physicians who have died due to pregnancy related issues (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Chaniece_Wallace)

and Serena Williams, who nearly dyed because her physicians refused to listen to her. (https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...ar-death-childbirth-complications/9504616002/)

It almost was my daughter in law as well who had preeclampsia and was re-hospitalized the day after she came home due to post partum preeclampsia. Thank god for the home nurse visit

I'm not sure what you are getting at with your statement (red bolded). There is no cause of death listed in the article. However, you seem to be implying that the cause of death is due to some complication related to the birth, but who knows? Maybe she tripped and hit her head or died of a drug overdose. I think its a little to early to speculate about the details of this case.

Also, your claim that this is the reason why women are opting out of motherhood is pretty bold. Do you have anything to support this? Anecdotally, I have heard multiple reasons from women themselves why they didn't have children, and poor post partum care was never mentioned. Usually, it was things like not being financially stable, didn't want children to interfere with career goals, can't seem to meet the right guy, etc. Some don't want to raise kids given their bleak view of the future world (in particular climate change). A lot just don't like kids!

 

[Toni]

In case you are wondering why women are opting out of motherhood:

Phoenix police rescue baby left alone for days after mother dies

A baby who was left alone for days in a Phoenix apartment after the infant's mother died was rescued by police officers.

www.cbsnews.com

Headline reads:

Phoenix police rescue baby left alone for days after mother dies​

A baby who was left alone for days in a Phoenix, Arizona, apartment was rescued by police officers last month after the infant's mother had died, officials said Friday.

Phoenix police said they received a call from a neighbor on the morning of May 14 to check on a woman who had recently given birth, but who had not been heard from for several days.

So, a new mother, recently having given birth and apparently at home alone with a newborn DIES and the headline is still that the baby was left alone. Like the mother went out partying.

The headline should have read that new mother dies because she did not receive the necessary post partum care she needed. But nope.

Women are NOT getting the support they need to survive pregnancy and childbirth, much less raise a child decently and they are still blamed.

In case you missed the news, the maternal death rate in the US is rising. This, btw, includes well educated women and women who are well off and who are not medically ignorant. These include physicians who have died due to pregnancy related issues (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Chaniece_Wallace)

and Serena Williams, who nearly dyed because her physicians refused to listen to her. (https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...ar-death-childbirth-complications/9504616002/)

It almost was my daughter in law as well who had preeclampsia and was re-hospitalized the day after she came home due to post partum preeclampsia. Thank god for the home nurse visit

I'm not sure what you are getting at with your statement (red bolded). There is no cause of death listed in the article. However, you seem to be implying that the cause of death is due to some complication related to the birth, but who knows? Maybe she tripped and hit her head or died of a drug overdose. I think its a little to early to speculate about the details of this case.

Also, your claim that this is the reason why women are opting out of motherhood is pretty bold. Do you have anything to support this? Anecdotally, I have heard multiple reasons from women themselves why they didn't have children, and poor post partum care was never mentioned. Usually, it was things like not being financially stable, didn't want children to interfere with career goals, can't seem to meet the right guy, etc. Some don't want to raise kids given their bleak view of the future world (in particular climate change). A lot just don't like kids!

The headline reads that a baby was left alone. As in abandoned. There were so many other ways to convey this information that did not blame the woman who died from complications after childbirth. In fact other news sources found it quite within their powers.

The cause of death has still not been determined.

If you think that women are unaware of the life and death consequences of pregnancy and childbirth, I’m guessing you haven’t talked much with women.

No I don’t have any stats about how many women choose not to have a baby because of fear for their life but that’s the reason my son and his partner are not having another child. Healthy pregnancy right up until she developed pre-eclampsia —baby delivered early due to preeclampsia which is generally resolved when the baby is born. But not always. She was fine when released by hospital but the next day, her BP was spiking again. She was re-hospitalized and very carefully monitored after they could come home again, Preeclampsia is life threatening. Sometimes even after the baby is born.

 

[pood]

It’s a bad headline. It does say the mother died, but the “left alone” part is the problem. Nobody “left” it alone. It should have just said, “alone for days.”

 

[thebeave]

In case you are wondering why women are opting out of motherhood:

Phoenix police rescue baby left alone for days after mother dies

A baby who was left alone for days in a Phoenix apartment after the infant's mother died was rescued by police officers.

www.cbsnews.com

Headline reads:

Phoenix police rescue baby left alone for days after mother dies​

A baby who was left alone for days in a Phoenix, Arizona, apartment was rescued by police officers last month after the infant's mother had died, officials said Friday.

Phoenix police said they received a call from a neighbor on the morning of May 14 to check on a woman who had recently given birth, but who had not been heard from for several days.

So, a new mother, recently having given birth and apparently at home alone with a newborn DIES and the headline is still that the baby was left alone. Like the mother went out partying.

The headline should have read that new mother dies because she did not receive the necessary post partum care she needed. But nope.

Women are NOT getting the support they need to survive pregnancy and childbirth, much less raise a child decently and they are still blamed.

In case you missed the news, the maternal death rate in the US is rising. This, btw, includes well educated women and women who are well off and who are not medically ignorant. These include physicians who have died due to pregnancy related issues (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Chaniece_Wallace)

and Serena Williams, who nearly dyed because her physicians refused to listen to her. (https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...ar-death-childbirth-complications/9504616002/)

It almost was my daughter in law as well who had preeclampsia and was re-hospitalized the day after she came home due to post partum preeclampsia. Thank god for the home nurse visit

I'm not sure what you are getting at with your statement (red bolded). There is no cause of death listed in the article. However, you seem to be implying that the cause of death is due to some complication related to the birth, but who knows? Maybe she tripped and hit her head or died of a drug overdose. I think its a little to early to speculate about the details of this case.

Also, your claim that this is the reason why women are opting out of motherhood is pretty bold. Do you have anything to support this? Anecdotally, I have heard multiple reasons from women themselves why they didn't have children, and poor post partum care was never mentioned. Usually, it was things like not being financially stable, didn't want children to interfere with career goals, can't seem to meet the right guy, etc. Some don't want to raise kids given their bleak view of the future world (in particular climate change). A lot just don't like kids!

The headline reads that a baby was left alone. As in abandoned. There were so many other ways to convey this information that did not blame the woman who died from complications after childbirth. In fact other news sources found it quite within their powers.

The cause of death has still not been determined.

If you think that women are unaware of the life and death consequences of pregnancy and childbirth, I’m guessing you haven’t talked much with women.

No I don’t have any stats about how many women choose not to have a baby because of fear for their life but that’s the reason my son and his partner are not having another child. Healthy pregnancy right up until she developed pre-eclampsia —baby delivered early due to preeclampsia which is generally resolved when the baby is born. But not always. She was fine when released by hospital but the next day, her BP was spiking again. She was re-hospitalized and very carefully monitored after they could come home again, Preeclampsia is life threatening. Sometimes even after the baby is born.

The headline could be improved for clarity, but it doesn't seem to me to convey that the mother is to blame for what happened to her baby. The only exception would be if she committed suicide without making provisions for her baby's wellbeing, then we might blame the mother for the baby's predicament. And you're saying she died from complications after childbirth, then two sentences later you say the cause of death has still not been determined. And how did get that I think women are unaware of life and death consequences of pregnancy and childbirth? That doesn't follow from anything I've said. Perhaps you're assuming that because I didn't mention it explicitly as a reason for not wanting kids, but I did use the term "etc" to indicate that my list was not an all inclusive list of reasons.

 

[Toni]

In case you are wondering why women are opting out of motherhood:

Phoenix police rescue baby left alone for days after mother dies

A baby who was left alone for days in a Phoenix apartment after the infant's mother died was rescued by police officers.

www.cbsnews.com

Headline reads:

Phoenix police rescue baby left alone for days after mother dies​

A baby who was left alone for days in a Phoenix, Arizona, apartment was rescued by police officers last month after the infant's mother had died, officials said Friday.

Phoenix police said they received a call from a neighbor on the morning of May 14 to check on a woman who had recently given birth, but who had not been heard from for several days.

So, a new mother, recently having given birth and apparently at home alone with a newborn DIES and the headline is still that the baby was left alone. Like the mother went out partying.

The headline should have read that new mother dies because she did not receive the necessary post partum care she needed. But nope.

Women are NOT getting the support they need to survive pregnancy and childbirth, much less raise a child decently and they are still blamed.

In case you missed the news, the maternal death rate in the US is rising. This, btw, includes well educated women and women who are well off and who are not medically ignorant. These include physicians who have died due to pregnancy related issues (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Chaniece_Wallace)

and Serena Williams, who nearly dyed because her physicians refused to listen to her. (https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...ar-death-childbirth-complications/9504616002/)

It almost was my daughter in law as well who had preeclampsia and was re-hospitalized the day after she came home due to post partum preeclampsia. Thank god for the home nurse visit

I'm not sure what you are getting at with your statement (red bolded). There is no cause of death listed in the article. However, you seem to be implying that the cause of death is due to some complication related to the birth, but who knows? Maybe she tripped and hit her head or died of a drug overdose. I think its a little to early to speculate about the details of this case.

Also, your claim that this is the reason why women are opting out of motherhood is pretty bold. Do you have anything to support this? Anecdotally, I have heard multiple reasons from women themselves why they didn't have children, and poor post partum care was never mentioned. Usually, it was things like not being financially stable, didn't want children to interfere with career goals, can't seem to meet the right guy, etc. Some don't want to raise kids given their bleak view of the future world (in particular climate change). A lot just don't like kids!

The headline reads that a baby was left alone. As in abandoned. There were so many other ways to convey this information that did not blame the woman who died from complications after childbirth. In fact other news sources found it quite within their powers.

The cause of death has still not been determined.

If you think that women are unaware of the life and death consequences of pregnancy and childbirth, I’m guessing you haven’t talked much with women.

No I don’t have any stats about how many women choose not to have a baby because of fear for their life but that’s the reason my son and his partner are not having another child. Healthy pregnancy right up until she developed pre-eclampsia —baby delivered early due to preeclampsia which is generally resolved when the baby is born. But not always. She was fine when released by hospital but the next day, her BP was spiking again. She was re-hospitalized and very carefully monitored after they could come home again, Preeclampsia is life threatening. Sometimes even after the baby is born.

The headline could be improved for clarity, but it doesn't seem to me to convey that the mother is to blame for what happened to her baby. The only exception would be if she committed suicide without making provisions for her baby's wellbeing, then we might blame the mother for the baby's predicament. And you're saying she died from complications after childbirth, then two sentences later you say the cause of death has still not been determined. And how did get that I think women are unaware of life and death consequences of pregnancy and childbirth? That doesn't follow from anything I've said. Perhaps you're assuming that because I didn't mention it explicitly as a reason for not wanting kids, but I did use the term "etc" to indicate that my list was not an all inclusive list of reasons.

Drug and alcohol testing results tend to come back quickly. An obvious suicide could be reported immediately. BTW, a suicide so soon after giving birth is almost certainly a result of post partum depression, something that almost all women suffer from to some degree, sometimes very severely. This has been true of more than one woman in my family.

I got the idea you were not aware because you dismissed my suggestion that it was related to complications of pregnancy/childbirth.

The point I was trying to make by posting that article is that the headline says the baby was abandoned —ie it was the mother’s fault. This is not a one-off. Women are blamed by society as a whole for every choice they make or don’t make: to have children or not. How well the children do. Whether they marry or don’t marry. Whether they are gainfully employed—or not. The amount of money they make ( too much is emasculating!) or don’t make and the hours they work. How clean and tidy the home is, and if meals are home cooked, how the children are dressed and how they do in school. How she dresses. Does she have a social life? Either way, the mother is judged very harshly.

That is what this headline did: judge a new mother because her death caused the baby to be alone. No sympathy or concern for the dead mother.

 

[thebeave]

In case you are wondering why women are opting out of motherhood:

Phoenix police rescue baby left alone for days after mother dies

A baby who was left alone for days in a Phoenix apartment after the infant's mother died was rescued by police officers.

www.cbsnews.com

Headline reads:

Phoenix police rescue baby left alone for days after mother dies​

A baby who was left alone for days in a Phoenix, Arizona, apartment was rescued by police officers last month after the infant's mother had died, officials said Friday.

Phoenix police said they received a call from a neighbor on the morning of May 14 to check on a woman who had recently given birth, but who had not been heard from for several days.

So, a new mother, recently having given birth and apparently at home alone with a newborn DIES and the headline is still that the baby was left alone. Like the mother went out partying.

The headline should have read that new mother dies because she did not receive the necessary post partum care she needed. But nope.

Women are NOT getting the support they need to survive pregnancy and childbirth, much less raise a child decently and they are still blamed.

In case you missed the news, the maternal death rate in the US is rising. This, btw, includes well educated women and women who are well off and who are not medically ignorant. These include physicians who have died due to pregnancy related issues (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Chaniece_Wallace)

and Serena Williams, who nearly dyed because her physicians refused to listen to her. (https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...ar-death-childbirth-complications/9504616002/)

It almost was my daughter in law as well who had preeclampsia and was re-hospitalized the day after she came home due to post partum preeclampsia. Thank god for the home nurse visit

I'm not sure what you are getting at with your statement (red bolded). There is no cause of death listed in the article. However, you seem to be implying that the cause of death is due to some complication related to the birth, but who knows? Maybe she tripped and hit her head or died of a drug overdose. I think its a little to early to speculate about the details of this case.

Also, your claim that this is the reason why women are opting out of motherhood is pretty bold. Do you have anything to support this? Anecdotally, I have heard multiple reasons from women themselves why they didn't have children, and poor post partum care was never mentioned. Usually, it was things like not being financially stable, didn't want children to interfere with career goals, can't seem to meet the right guy, etc. Some don't want to raise kids given their bleak view of the future world (in particular climate change). A lot just don't like kids!

The headline reads that a baby was left alone. As in abandoned. There were so many other ways to convey this information that did not blame the woman who died from complications after childbirth. In fact other news sources found it quite within their powers.

The cause of death has still not been determined.

If you think that women are unaware of the life and death consequences of pregnancy and childbirth, I’m guessing you haven’t talked much with women.

No I don’t have any stats about how many women choose not to have a baby because of fear for their life but that’s the reason my son and his partner are not having another child. Healthy pregnancy right up until she developed pre-eclampsia —baby delivered early due to preeclampsia which is generally resolved when the baby is born. But not always. She was fine when released by hospital but the next day, her BP was spiking again. She was re-hospitalized and very carefully monitored after they could come home again, Preeclampsia is life threatening. Sometimes even after the baby is born.

The headline could be improved for clarity, but it doesn't seem to me to convey that the mother is to blame for what happened to her baby. The only exception would be if she committed suicide without making provisions for her baby's wellbeing, then we might blame the mother for the baby's predicament. And you're saying she died from complications after childbirth, then two sentences later you say the cause of death has still not been determined. And how did get that I think women are unaware of life and death consequences of pregnancy and childbirth? That doesn't follow from anything I've said. Perhaps you're assuming that because I didn't mention it explicitly as a reason for not wanting kids, but I did use the term "etc" to indicate that my list was not an all inclusive list of reasons.

Drug and alcohol testing results tend to come back quickly. An obvious suicide could be reported immediately. BTW, a suicide so soon after giving birth is almost certainly a result of post partum depression, something that almost all women suffer from to some degree, sometimes very severely. This has been true of more than one woman in my family.

I got the idea you were not aware because you dismissed my suggestion that it was related to complications of pregnancy/childbirth.

The point I was trying to make by posting that article is that the headline says the baby was abandoned —ie it was the mother’s fault. This is not a one-off. Women are blamed by society as a whole for every choice they make or don’t make: to have children or not. How well the children do. Whether they marry or don’t marry. Whether they are gainfully employed—or not. The amount of money they make ( too much is emasculating!) or don’t make and the hours they work. How clean and tidy the home is, and if meals are home cooked, how the children are dressed and how they do in school. How she dresses. Does she have a social life? Either way, the mother is judged very harshly.

That is what this headline did: judge a new mother because her death caused the baby to be alone. No sympathy or concern for the dead mother.

I did not dismiss your suggestion that it was complications of pregnancy/childbirth. I merely stated that it was not determined that it was the cause of death. It very well could be that....or something else. You are misconstruing what I am saying, and everytime I respond, you come up with a new one, or add a ton of irrelevent details and anecdotes about, say, what happened to your Aunt Betty 40 years ago. I'm not going to keep going down this rabbit hole with you. I have better things to do today. It is an interesting bit of news, though and I am curious now about the backstory. Let's just all agree to wait for an update on this story, and then we can revive the discussion with added facts.

 

[Toni]

In case you are wondering why women are opting out of motherhood:

Phoenix police rescue baby left alone for days after mother dies

A baby who was left alone for days in a Phoenix apartment after the infant's mother died was rescued by police officers.

www.cbsnews.com

Headline reads:

Phoenix police rescue baby left alone for days after mother dies​

A baby who was left alone for days in a Phoenix, Arizona, apartment was rescued by police officers last month after the infant's mother had died, officials said Friday.

Phoenix police said they received a call from a neighbor on the morning of May 14 to check on a woman who had recently given birth, but who had not been heard from for several days.

So, a new mother, recently having given birth and apparently at home alone with a newborn DIES and the headline is still that the baby was left alone. Like the mother went out partying.

The headline should have read that new mother dies because she did not receive the necessary post partum care she needed. But nope.

Women are NOT getting the support they need to survive pregnancy and childbirth, much less raise a child decently and they are still blamed.

In case you missed the news, the maternal death rate in the US is rising. This, btw, includes well educated women and women who are well off and who are not medically ignorant. These include physicians who have died due to pregnancy related issues (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Chaniece_Wallace)

and Serena Williams, who nearly dyed because her physicians refused to listen to her. (https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...ar-death-childbirth-complications/9504616002/)

It almost was my daughter in law as well who had preeclampsia and was re-hospitalized the day after she came home due to post partum preeclampsia. Thank god for the home nurse visit

I'm not sure what you are getting at with your statement (red bolded). There is no cause of death listed in the article. However, you seem to be implying that the cause of death is due to some complication related to the birth, but who knows? Maybe she tripped and hit her head or died of a drug overdose. I think its a little to early to speculate about the details of this case.

Also, your claim that this is the reason why women are opting out of motherhood is pretty bold. Do you have anything to support this? Anecdotally, I have heard multiple reasons from women themselves why they didn't have children, and poor post partum care was never mentioned. Usually, it was things like not being financially stable, didn't want children to interfere with career goals, can't seem to meet the right guy, etc. Some don't want to raise kids given their bleak view of the future world (in particular climate change). A lot just don't like kids!

The headline reads that a baby was left alone. As in abandoned. There were so many other ways to convey this information that did not blame the woman who died from complications after childbirth. In fact other news sources found it quite within their powers.

The cause of death has still not been determined.

If you think that women are unaware of the life and death consequences of pregnancy and childbirth, I’m guessing you haven’t talked much with women.

No I don’t have any stats about how many women choose not to have a baby because of fear for their life but that’s the reason my son and his partner are not having another child. Healthy pregnancy right up until she developed pre-eclampsia —baby delivered early due to preeclampsia which is generally resolved when the baby is born. But not always. She was fine when released by hospital but the next day, her BP was spiking again. She was re-hospitalized and very carefully monitored after they could come home again, Preeclampsia is life threatening. Sometimes even after the baby is born.

The headline could be improved for clarity, but it doesn't seem to me to convey that the mother is to blame for what happened to her baby. The only exception would be if she committed suicide without making provisions for her baby's wellbeing, then we might blame the mother for the baby's predicament. And you're saying she died from complications after childbirth, then two sentences later you say the cause of death has still not been determined. And how did get that I think women are unaware of life and death consequences of pregnancy and childbirth? That doesn't follow from anything I've said. Perhaps you're assuming that because I didn't mention it explicitly as a reason for not wanting kids, but I did use the term "etc" to indicate that my list was not an all inclusive list of reasons.

Drug and alcohol testing results tend to come back quickly. An obvious suicide could be reported immediately. BTW, a suicide so soon after giving birth is almost certainly a result of post partum depression, something that almost all women suffer from to some degree, sometimes very severely. This has been true of more than one woman in my family.

I got the idea you were not aware because you dismissed my suggestion that it was related to complications of pregnancy/childbirth.

The point I was trying to make by posting that article is that the headline says the baby was abandoned —ie it was the mother’s fault. This is not a one-off. Women are blamed by society as a whole for every choice they make or don’t make: to have children or not. How well the children do. Whether they marry or don’t marry. Whether they are gainfully employed—or not. The amount of money they make ( too much is emasculating!) or don’t make and the hours they work. How clean and tidy the home is, and if meals are home cooked, how the children are dressed and how they do in school. How she dresses. Does she have a social life? Either way, the mother is judged very harshly.

That is what this headline did: judge a new mother because her death caused the baby to be alone. No sympathy or concern for the dead mother.

I did not dismiss your suggestion that it was complications of pregnancy/childbirth. I merely stated that it was not determined that it was the cause of death. It very well could be that....or something else. You are misconstruing what I am saying, and everytime I respond, you come up with a new one, or add a ton of irrelevent details and anecdotes about, say, what happened to your Aunt Betty 40 years ago. I'm not going to keep going down this rabbit hole with you. I have better things to do today. It is an interesting bit of news, though and I am curious now about the backstory. Let's just all agree to wait for an update on this story, and then we can revive the discussion with added facts.

The women who nearly lost their lives due to complications of pregnancy or childbirth have young children.

Maternal deaths are increasing. This is not, as has been suggested simply because more women are abusing drugs or alcohol during pregnancy but as I noted above, women who are well educated, including MDs! and wealthy women are dying, very often because doctors are not listening or are minimizing what women say about their symptoms. Actually, women’s health concerns in general are dismissed much more readily than are men’s. Women are not offered pain relief as often. Most medical standards are based upon healthy young white men because most standard values were set years ago from a sample that primarily included med students: healthy young white men. This is not news. This has been well known for years.

 

[bilby]

The use of less resources may be achieved by a business through increasing efficiency, improving systems and practices, etc, but the point here is the push to grow the economy, and growth in the economy cannot be achieved without increasing overall resource use.

The use of less resources grows the economy.

Doing the same with less stuff (or more with the same stuff) IS economic growth; It's mesurable in a dollar increase in the economic activity that goes on.

If I make $1,000,000 this year from widget sales, using 1,000 tonnes of iron to do so, and then I think up a way to make widgets that are just as good, with half the iron, next year I can do $2M of business, with no increase in resource use at all. Through thinking alone.

This IS growth in the economy being achieved without increasing overall resource use. Your claim that it "cannot be achieved" is proven to be false, and you should not make it again.

 

[Elixir]

If I make $1,000,000 this year from widget sales, using 1,000 tonnes of iron to do so, and then I think up a way to make widgets that are just as good, with half the iron, next year I can do $2M of business, with no increase in resource use at all.

WUT? If you MAKE $1m from a product and cut the delivered cost of one raw material element in half, that doesn't double your profit, unless your "widget" is bulk iron that you never have to handle (IOW speculative performance contracts, which I consider parasitic).
Purifying, forming, packaging, storage, handling facilities, personnel ... most cost elements don't automatically cut themselves in half.
The cut in iron price does make room elsewhere in the economy for someone else to use it, but the effect ain't that great unless you're already an international conglomerate powerhouse or equivalent.

 

[Gospel]

If I make $1,000,000 this year from widget sales, using 1,000 tonnes of iron to do so, and then I think up a way to make widgets that are just as good, with half the iron, next year I can do $2M of business, with no increase in resource use at all.

WUT? If you MAKE $1m from a product and cut the delivered cost of one raw material element in half, that doesn't double your profit, unless your "widget" is bulk iron that you never have to handle (IOW speculative performance contracts, which I consider parasitic).
Purifying, forming, packaging, storage, handling facilities, personnel ... most cost elements don't automatically cut themselves in half.
The cut in iron price does make room elsewhere in the economy for someone else to use it, but the effect ain't that great unless you're already an international conglomerate powerhouse or equivalent.

I think he’s saying if he found a way to make the same widget using half the resources, he can now produce twice as many from the same 1,000 tons of iron. He’s not claiming he’ll make $2 million from half the number of widgets. Unless I’m going crazy, of course.

 

[bilby]

If I make $1,000,000 this year from widget sales, using 1,000 tonnes of iron to do so, and then I think up a way to make widgets that are just as good, with half the iron, next year I can do $2M of business, with no increase in resource use at all.

WUT? If you MAKE $1m from a product and cut the delivered cost of one raw material element in half

Wait, where did I mention cost? The amount of iron fell from 1,000 tonnes to 500, which reduced resource use.

that doesn't double your profit,

I didn't suggest that it would. I said it would double production, for a given amount of raw material.

unless your "widget" is bulk iron that you never have to handle (IOW speculative performance contracts, which I consider parasitic).
Purifying, forming, packaging, storage, handling facilities, personnel ... most cost elements don't automatically cut themselves in half.

True enough. Irrelevant, but true.

The cut in iron price

No such cut occurred.

does make room elsewhere in the economy for someone else to use it,

The cut in iron use can either make room for other uses, or it can mean some ore stays in the ground. That's irrelevant to my analysis. The saving of a mere 500 tonnes of iron per annum is far too small to have any measurable impact on the price of iron or of iron ore.

but the effect ain't that great unless you're already an international conglomerate powerhouse or equivalent.

You mean, the kind of big business that has lots of employees whose sole job is to think?

 

[bilby]

I think he’s saying if he found a way to make the same widget using half the resources, he can now produce twice as many from the same 1,000 tons of iron. He’s not claiming he’ll make $2 million from half the number of widgets. Unless I’m going crazy, of course.

Exactly. I am glad somebody understood my point.

I am afraid I am not qualified to assure you that you are not going crazy, however.

 

[Elixir]

I didn't suggest that it would. I said it would double production, for a given amount of raw material.

In your example you “MAKE” $1m in yr 1 and “do $2m in business” in yr 2.
In the first place it implies $1m net profit, the second implies $2m in gross sales.
What were your sales in yr 1 that yielded $1m inprofit?
You could make the same amount of product in yr2 as in yr 1 but halving your iron cost doesn’t double your profit from what you make, unless you “make” unworked iron.
It means using half the iron. Implying that this doubles profits, assumes that the widget is made of 100 percent raw iron with no ancillary production distribution, admin or sales costs.
/pedantry

I acknowledge the validity of your underlying point though; it is possible to use fewer resources through efficiency of use, optimizing designs or other ways, without contracting the economy.

 

[bilby]

I didn't suggest that it would. I said it would double production, for a given amount of raw material.

In your example you “MAKE” $1m in yr 1 and “do $2m in business” in yr 2.

No.

If I make $1,000,000 this year from widget sales

Both figures are sales income.

In the first place it implies $1m net profit, the second implies $2m in gross sales.

Not what I intended. Nor what I said, though I can see how you might misinterpret it that way, if not for the context that such an interpretation would require the assumption that I am an idiot.

What were your sales in yr 1 that yielded $1m inprofit?

Who cares? It changes nothing.

You could make the same amount of product in yr2 as in yr 1 but halving your iron cost doesn’t double your profit from what you make, unless you “make” unworked iron.

Nobody said anything about costs.

It means using half the iron.

Yes.

Implying that this doubles profits,

I make no such implication...

assumes that the widget is made of 100 percent raw iron with no ancillary production distribution, admin or sales costs.
/pedantry

You mean "/misplaced pedantry".

I acknowledge the validity of your underlying point though; it is possible to use fewer resources through efficiency of use, optimizing designs or other ways, without contracting the economy.

No shit.

 

[Elixir]

Both figures are sales income.

If you MAKE it, it implies profit. SELLING X dollars isn’t MAKING X dollars, in ‘Murkin biz vernacular (unless your product and it’s selling costs are zero). Minor quibble, but a curious one if the meaning is different in Au. I remember a similar clarification in terms being needed when we had a contract with TacMed Solutions Australia.
It not germane to your point, but perhaps explanatory.

Nobody said anything about costs.

‘Cept the cost of iron?
Raw material (dirt, wood)

 

[bilby]

If you MAKE it, it implies profit. SELLING X dollars isn’t MAKING X dollars, in ‘Murkin biz vernacular

I don't speak 'Murkin. I am fluent in Strine, Yorkshire, and BBC English, and have a working knowledge of Indian Business English and Singaporean Business English. Five languages called English is more than enough for me.

 

[DBT]

Why does it matter how many layers there are between a thought or idea and its practical application?

View attachment 51241

The point here is that perpetual economic growth is an illusion, and thought alone does not generate economic growth,

Basically:

''The global material footprint has grown in lockstep with the exponentially rising global economy (GDP) since the industrial revolution. This is largely because of egregious consumption by the super-affluent in a socioeconomic system founded on growth without limits. Can we resolve this fundamental conflict between the quest for limitless growth and the consequent environmental destruction?

''Whether it is principles of classical, quantum or solid state physics or thermodynamics, each places different but inexorable constraints on technological solutions. Basically, physical principles that have allowed incredible technological leaps over the past century also inevitably limit them.

We might consider that extensive recycling of materials would offset efficiency limits. Recycling is crucial; however, while glass and metals can be recycled almost indefinitely without loss of quality, materials such as paper and plastic can be recycled only a few times before becoming too degraded.''

 

[DBT]

The use of less resources may be achieved by a business through increasing efficiency, improving systems and practices, etc, but the point here is the push to grow the economy, and growth in the economy cannot be achieved without increasing overall resource use.

The use of less resources grows the economy.

Not in the real world.

Doing the same with less stuff (or more with the same stuff) IS economic growth; It's mesurable in a dollar increase in the economic activity that goes on.

That's not how the economy of a nation works. That is not how business works. Market forces, supply and demand sets the price of goods and services, and the nature of business is to supply the customers with what they want and turn a good profit in the process.

Idealism and saving the planet is hardly a factor.

If I make $1,000,000 this year from widget sales, using 1,000 tonnes of iron to do so, and then I think up a way to make widgets that are just as good, with half the iron, next year I can do $2M of business, with no increase in resource use at all. Through thinking alone.

This IS growth in the economy being achieved without increasing overall resource use. Your claim that it "cannot be achieved" is proven to be false, and you should not make it again.

Nice in theory. Doesn't work that often in practice. For evidence, just look at the state of the world.