To: epicure who wrote (4663 ) 1/16/2004 1:57:37 AM From: cosmicforce Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 7832 In 100 years, the majority of people went from agrarian, mostly white, and rather uneducated to a much more culturally diverse population with a higher mean education and a reduced rift between rich and poor. This was true up until the 80's. This was largely do to social engineering done by Roosevelt-style (both the Teddy and Franklin type) Big Government, IMO. It was clever! Take the planks of the Red's, and disable them. The problem is that this empowers the Middle Class and they get too uppity. It isn't like the alternative to Social Spending Big Government is Small Government, it is Mean and Angry Big Government, whether it is Big C Communist Big Government, or Fascist Big Brother Big Government. Considering the alternative, I prefer social engineering with an educated populace living in a representative democracy. It sometimes seems that our government is getting too big to govern. Most companies spin off divisions when they get big. Companies don't try to build empires because we made that illegal. It isn't that it hasn't been tried. Individuals are exempt, BTW, so we have no caps on how rich and how much influence you get to have. Historically, that seems to be a mistake and leads to despotism. You can refer to any social democracy of Europe, and by almost any measure, on a MEAN and MEDIAN basis, the typical person there is better off than their rank-order brethren in this country - life expectancy, age of retirement, weeks of vacation. They don't score as well on some income measures. If you have to hide in a gated community in order to let your kids play in a recreational compound because any public area is too unsafe, there just isn't enough income to compensate you IMO. It is not a sign of weakness to look to the parts of the world where good ideas and ideals have taken root. To the contrary, an intelligent approach to life is to explore as many options as possible and always test the status quo. I know many, many fine examples of humanity that would have been shunned in 1930's America. Most people have an uneducated, largely peasant-class lineage and there is nothing noble in poverty and ignorance. Once people leave that set of "roots" they can be embarrassed by it later. Some people ignore their inner Bubba. Some embrace it. Some even reject it. The best alternative is to pick and choose. Bubbas know how to have fun on a Saturday night. We just have to keep them from fighting when they get drunk. We can only hope that in 70 years, people will puzzle over why such fuss was made about the Muslims, Indians and Pakistanis and Mexicans that were emigrating to the U.S. White dilution is a statistical fact of life for this planet, and much of America is already mostly mixed ancestry anyway, giving you and your children a planetary heritage rather than a parochial heritage. If that happens, great. Facts is facts. Population goes from high density to low density after it reaches a certain mass, but only if there is not an increase in personal affluence. The middle class usually doesn't leave its country - they've got roots their. It a law like the diffusion of gases... personal wealth attracts the population that would otherwise be subject density diffusion. It is best to have a national policy where you leave foreign countries richer than poorer after interacting with you. Their people will stay home if things are good. A lot of the world has potential. This is probably upsetting for some people that cling to tightly to their Bubbas. That certainly is true for those who embrace their inner Emperor. I know I could have easily ended up with South- or East-Asian, Hispanic, European, Jewish, or Black women. The fact is, women are great. What are these Americanized girls going to be like in 70 years? I hope for my kid's kid's that they are well-educated, kind, beautiful, from educated families and exciting to be around. I've got a spouse who is a perfect example of outbreeding - I can tell you, she's great!