inthemix.com.au: australian dance music | news | reviews | photos | forums | chat | what's on

DJ Squiggle · 04-Oct-11, 04:58pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

It's largely irrelevant whether education or some other reason is causing that, but at the end of the day, less people are choosing to start families and that reflects a change in values more than anything else IMO

The particular changes in values that you list do not apply in developing non-Western countries. The changes in values associated with education do apply to ALL countries. And yet you call the latter irrelevant?

The changes in values that you are concerned about are ones I am concerned about also but as a qualified satistician I am stating that your connections with fertility are not ruled out, but there is no actual evidence. To rule them in, you would need to argue that their effect ADDS to the education effect and that the decline is greater than it otherwise would be. Even if you are right, that would be pretty hard to do. For that reason this sub-thread is a bit of a dead end and not much better than he-said, she-said gossip from here in.

DBB618 has stated facts that can be backed by hard statistical data... a much more fruitful line of discussion. I don't think anyone here cares about my opionion, his opnion, or your opinion. I am sick of a media that encourages callers to tweet or phone in their opinions. That only matters to the insecure people who want to follow the crowd. The rest of us will use reason. In this forum it seems that crowd=reason.

buffed · 04-Oct-11, 05:37pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ Squiggle

The particular changes in values that you list do not apply in developing non-Western countries. The changes in values associated with education do apply to ALL countries. And yet you call the latter irrelevant?

The changes in values that you are concerned about are ones I am concerned about also but as a qualified satistician I am stating that your connections with fertility are not ruled out, but there is no actual evidence. To rule them in, you would need to argue that their effect ADDS to the education effect and that the decline is greater than it otherwise would be. Even if you are right, that would be pretty hard to do. For that reason this sub-thread is a bit of a dead end and not much better than he-said, she-said gossip from here in.

DBB618 has stated facts that can be backed by hard statistical data... a much more fruitful line of discussion. I don't think anyone here cares about my opionion, his opnion, or your opinion. I am sick of a media that encourages callers to tweet or phone in their opinions. That only matters to the insecure people who want to follow the crowd. The rest of us will use reason. In this forum it seems that crowd=reason.

with respect to you the reasons i quoted were from the Parliamentary library, they weren't my opinion.

i quote below from the Department of the prime minister's study into fertility in 2008

"Australia’s fertility has been influenced by a change in the profile of Australia’s parents and, in particular, an increase in the age of mothers and fathers associated with partnering later"

"There is likely to be a number of reasons why parents are having smaller families, including increasing participation of women in higher education and employment, changing attitudes to family size, lifestyle choices, greater access to contraceptive measures and abortion and other complex factors"

"The AIFS survey also found that for women who had not had children, the preference of having no children or only one child became progressively more popular as they got older. Reasons for remaining childless included being single or having a partner who already had children, having postponed having a child and now feeling too old to cope with raising children, or infertility problems experienced by themselves or their partner."

Geezah · 04-Oct-11, 06:22pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

with respect to you the reasons i quoted were from the Parliamentary library, they weren't my opinion.

i quote below from the Department of the prime minister's study into fertility in 2008

"Australia’s fertility has been influenced by a change in the profile of Australia’s parents and, in particular, an increase in the age of mothers and fathers associated with partnering later"

"There is likely to be a number of reasons why parents are having smaller families, including increasing participation of women in higher education and employment, changing attitudes to family size, lifestyle choices, greater access to contraceptive measures and abortion and other complex factors"

"The AIFS survey also found that for women who had not had children, the preference of having no children or only one child became progressively more popular as they got older. Reasons for remaining childless included being single or having a partner who already had children, having postponed having a child and now feeling too old to cope with raising children, or infertility problems experienced by themselves or their partner."

And no mention of the 70's feminist movement.

buffed · 04-Oct-11, 09:26pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geezah

And no mention of the 70's feminist movement.

contraception, abortion, increased labor force participation etc just fel out of the sky did they?

Griggle · 04-Oct-11, 09:40pm

Increased labor force participation came about as a direct result of World War II not 70's feminism and oh shit Godwin's.

claude glass · 04-Oct-11, 10:10pm

It sucks when Godwin's sneaks up on you like that

buffed · 04-Oct-11, 10:28pm

I think the following is a good summary from a UN report

"Drawing from the experience of developed industrialized countries, women’s
employment is likely to lead to sustained declines in fertility when:

(a) Women’s employment is empowering or “status enhancing”, so that they have control
over income and resources and a greater say in family decision-making, including in
fertility decisions;
(b) The conflict between women’s productive and reproductive roles significantly raises the
opportunity cost of having children;
(c) Childcare arrangements are not easily available and the time intensity and quality of
childcare desired seriously constrain women’s economic activities;
(d) The interruption effects (of a period of labour force withdrawal to bear and raise young
children) involve heavy costs;
(e) The returns and satisfactions women derive from participation in economic activities are
substantially higher than the returns and satisfactions of having additional children;
(f) Women’s employment and income-earning capacity enhances their economic or financial
independence and reduces the need to have children as a form of security for old age or
against adverse economic conditions;
(g) Women’s economic role and contribution to family welfare lead to reduced sex
preference for children and changing attitudes toward the value of daughters;
(h) Women’s increasing participation in the labour force is linked to increasing investments
in girls’ education, and age at first marriage and age at first pregnancy go up; and
(i) Women work and build up careers before marriage, and age at first marriage and age at
first pregnancy go up.

DJ Squiggle · 04-Oct-11, 10:39pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

"Drawing from the experience of developed industrialized countries, women’s
employment is likely to lead to sustained declines in fertility when:
(c) Childcare arrangements are not easily available

So you are advocating improved childcare facilities?

DJ Squiggle · 04-Oct-11, 10:43pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

"Drawing from the experience of developed industrialized countries, women’s
employment is likely to lead to sustained declines in fertility when:
(e) The returns and satisfactions women derive from participation in economic activities are
substantially higher than the returns and satisfactions of having additional children;

So you are advocating that materialism is responsible afterall?

DJ Squiggle · 04-Oct-11, 10:47pm

buffed, as for the remaning points, which of them do you think are arguments in favour of increased fertility? Because they sound like good arguments for reducing fertility to me (which is not necessarily at odds with family values).

buffed · 04-Oct-11, 10:55pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ Squiggle

So you are advocating that materialism is responsible afterall?

this is what i wrote in my post earlier, perhaps you missed it......

"..........Whether you think liberation of women is a good or bad thing is not the point here, the thread is discussing reasons for the growth fetish and for me, the progressive decline in importance of the family and family unit is a large contributing factor to the push for growth, material well being and status at the individual level"

buffed · 04-Oct-11, 11:05pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ Squiggle

buffed, as for the remaning points, which of them do you think are arguments in favour of increased fertility? Because they sound like good arguments for reducing fertility to me (which is not necessarily at odds with family values).

i think it is at odds with family values. i think we gradually lose empathy if we become a childless society. i think there is something grounding in having children (obviously not all people become grounded after having children) but on the whole, i think the nurturing aspect of having a child is something that society cannot afford to lose. i personally think the decision not to have kids these days is driven more by greed........generation x and y don't want their lives interrupted, it's all about squeezing as much into life as possible and kids only get in the way of that. that's why i think erosion of family values is linked to a long term reduction in fertility.

twistedbydesign · 05-Oct-11, 12:02am

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

ego has always been there though since the dawn of time, i don't think it's a modern phenomenon. i don't think marketing per se was around during the greek and roman civilisations, yet status and social competition defined society in those empires. i think to much 'credit' is laid at the feet of marketers and like Nardo, i don't think they are as powerful or influential as they themselves would like to think. They simply feed off the human ego

True, maslows work could've served us better but marketing is just another symptom.

Ego being around since the dawn of time is a profound statement, since time was invented by the ego.

It is not all pervasive though. If you stop defining yourself by your ego you don't cease to exist.

robin78 · 05-Oct-11, 12:25am

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

. i personally think the decision not to have kids these days is driven more by greed........generation x and y don't want their lives interrupted, it's all about squeezing as much into life as possible and kids only get in the way of that.

Or maybe they just don't want to add to the world's biggest problem.

There's only 3 reasons ( and a host of variations on those 3) why people have children and none of them have anything to do with selflessness:

- you think you can do a better job than your parents
- you want your superior genes to continue on
- you want something to entertain you now and into the future

http://www.vhemt.org/paternalinstinct.gif

DJ Squiggle · 05-Oct-11, 12:55am

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

i think it is at odds with family values. i think we gradually lose empathy if we become a childless society. i think there is something grounding in having children (obviously not all people become grounded after having children) but on the whole, i think the nurturing aspect of having a child is something that society cannot afford to lose. i personally think the decision not to have kids these days is driven more by greed........generation x and y don't want their lives interrupted, it's all about squeezing as much into life as possible and kids only get in the way of that. that's why i think erosion of family values is linked to a long term reduction in fertility.

This is very hard to quantise. I guess we resort to comparing personal experiences again which is kind of dubious with complete strangers but I'll give it a go OK. Getting to know people in forums is possible I suppose.

I am childless. One of my best friends is also. Neither of us will ever have children. One reason is because it is hard to find women who are not materialistic (the dearth of female philosophers has been noted). Their preoccupation with nesting may be an explanation, I dunno. Another reason is because my friend and I feel connected to nature/life/reality/eternity without the need of having a physical/material "mini Me".

I do have other childless friends like us who don't need children to be "grounded". I have noticed that married people are, understandably, concerned with material security for their family and only have time to pursue the arts/philosophy/literature when the kids have left home. My friend teaches Art in the community and it is almost exclusively to grandmothers. I've noticed the same demographic in local book clubs. I am a member of a couple of book clubs that are organised online that are mainily middle-aged people but they are mainly childless.

There are just as many childless people who just keep partying hard, true, but they are (like my friend and I) exceptions to the rule. It seems to me that the rule (at age 30 say) is to live as if you are about to settle down and hopefully demonstrate to prospective partners that you are ready to nest. I don't socialise much these days so someone please correct me if they observe a diferent dynamic.

Besides I don't see how a party animal's self-indulgent Ferrari or Club Med holiday is any more materialistic and consumption driven than the family who relies on disposable nappies or needs a four wheel drive to take the kids to school/football/ballet or buy the latest fashions/tech-toys for their kids lest they become black sheep, ridiculed by their peers (that is one reason I would hate to be a parent - I don't see an easy way to navigate that conundrum).

This is more socialising now than debating, but that's OK. I don't mind socialising with people who at least are prepared to think deeply about such issues.

DJ Squiggle · 05-Oct-11, 01:01am

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

i think it is at odds with family values. i think we gradually lose empathy if we become a childless society.

I recall what I said to a forestry goon (in Goolengook) as he escorted me out of a logging coup I was intending to protest in. "You are worried about your job, your income, and your children. That's understandable. I on the other hand am worried about everyone's children, including the ones that haven't been born yet. Can you understand that?"

didjeridude · 05-Oct-11, 09:00am

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

i think it is at odds with family values. i think we gradually lose empathy if we become a childless society. i think there is something grounding in having children (obviously not all people become grounded after having children) but on the whole, i think the nurturing aspect of having a child is something that society cannot afford to lose. i personally think the decision not to have kids these days is driven more by greed........generation x and y don't want their lives interrupted, it's all about squeezing as much into life as possible and kids only get in the way of that. that's why i think erosion of family values is linked to a long term reduction in fertility.

Earlier you were kind of saying that you think the erosion of family values is what drives the growth fetish though. I think it is the other way around. I think that greed and selfishness drive the growth fetish and like you say, these are at odds with family values. So I don't disagree with you here buffed, and I think you are not just blaming women for wanting equal opportunity in the workforce etc because you are referring to gen x gen y which implies that men are also to blame for the erosion of family values. A woman still needs a man to create a family of course, and for every 30 something woman out there who wants kids I bet there are two 30 something men that don't want "commitment". Men still dominate the corporate world and men more or less rule the world still. In that respect capitalism can be seen as a vehicle via which corporate greed is able to manifest itself. I think it is drawing too long a bow though, to say that the women's liberation movement is the main driving factor behind the overall growth fetish because men are consumers too.

Also, blaming the women's lib movement of the 1970s cannot explain why fertility rates went down in the 1920-30s, went up in the 1940-50s, went down in the 1960s (before the liberation movement gained momentum), and has gone back up again in the past 5-7yrs. Furthermore, the fact that fertility rates in the 30-34 age range have steadily increased since 1976 suggests that society hasn't really turned its back on family values completely, it has just postponed it. I don't think there is anything immoral about that. I think a greater immorality is to deny women the right to have a career.

Finally, the irony here is that the concept that women are responsible for rampant consumerism because they are easily influenced by unscrupulous marketing and advertising in the mass media, is a radical left wing argument. So something really fucking weird is going on when you start lecturing this forum about radical left wing ideology and "family values". Kind of at odds with spending $5k on a trip to Ibzia isn't it?

didjeridude · 05-Oct-11, 09:38am

Something interesting regarding "family values". If you look at the divorce rate in Australia, you'll notice that it spikes massively in 1976, ie: the year that the family law act came into effect. Soon after the rate settles back down and stays more or less constant.

I asked my mother once (who is a psychologist with 20yrs experience in marriage guidance counselling) what her thoughts were on the fact that there are fewer divorces among religious couples than secular. She said that just because they stay together and don't get divorced doesn't mean they are any happier with their marriage.

So basically, prior to the mid 1970s we more or less had family values forced upon society as a result of tradition and conservatism. There was a large proportion of unhappily married couples who only stayed together because getting a divorce was difficult and frowned upon. About the same time, the fertility rate takes a massive dive which is more likely to reflect a "correction" towards pre-existing attitudes towards family (ie: an unhappily married couple who don't love each other should not have [more] kids because that is what was expected by society) rather than a sudden increase in the desire to spend spend spend.

In this respect, yeah I suppose you can argue that the women's lib movement played a role, but again, the greater immorality is to expect a man and a woman who don't love each other to stay together in an unhappy marriage. I don't really think this adheres to the concept of "family values" either.

buffed · 05-Oct-11, 10:33am

Quote:

Originally Posted by didjeridude

Earlier you were kind of saying that you think the erosion of family values is what drives the growth fetish though. I think it is the other way around. I think that greed and selfishness drive the growth fetish and like you say, these are at odds with family values. ?

imo i think the erosion of family values has also eroded morality. It's family values and morality which essentially keep the ego at bay. When those become eroded, the neurotic ego will take over and manifest in many ways, but primarily through greed and selfishness. There are a number of reasons as to why family values and morality have been eroded which i and we have discussed here, but i think greed and selfishness are symptoms, not causes.

big eddie · 05-Oct-11, 10:36am

Then again you have things that now exist like http://www.landshare.net/, that didn't exist 20 years ago.

gravyishot · 05-Oct-11, 10:44am

I don't understand what family values are.

claude glass · 05-Oct-11, 10:56am

How much you can sell your kids for on the black market.

claude glass · 05-Oct-11, 11:00am

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

imo i think the erosion of family values has also eroded morality. It's family values and morality which essentially keep the ego at bay. When those become eroded, the neurotic ego will take over and manifest in many ways, but primarily through greed and selfishness. There are a number of reasons as to why family values and morality have been eroded which i and we have discussed here, but i think greed and selfishness are symptoms, not causes.

something tells me you are going through something of a philosophical turning point buffed

but as far as cause and effect go, I think we live in a very networked type world now, where everything interacts with everything else. so what is the cause and what is the effect gets blurred.

dbb618 · 05-Oct-11, 11:00am

Family Values = whatever makes the religious right and their political apparatchik the most money

claude glass · 05-Oct-11, 11:10am

What we need is "society values", not family values as such. Is a big fat family aggressively charging around the roads in the Nissan patrol towing the ski boat and then locked indoors at night in suburban wasteland watching Australian Idol on the 72" plasma exemplar of family values? I don't think so.

It's not about having kids, it's about thinking about more than the 20m radius around your not so precious existance.

gravyishot · 05-Oct-11, 11:34am

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

It's not about having kids, it's about thinking about more than the 20m radius around your not so precious existance.

Wait. If your own existence isn't precious, why should anyone else's be?

I don't find it a very compelling argument that self sacrifice for the other is ennobling or virtuous, unless it's your progeny you're doing the sacrifice for.

claude glass · 05-Oct-11, 12:05pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by gravyishot

Wait. If your own existence isn't precious, why should anyone else's be?

I don't find it a very compelling argument that self sacrifice for the other is ennobling or virtuous, unless it's your progeny you're doing the sacrifice for.

I didn't say it wasn't precious, I said not so precious. What I meant was not more precious than anyone else. Not so precious that you have a right to bully your way through traffic, supermarket car parks and footpaths (get out of my way! I have a baby in a stroller!)

I completely agree with you about self sacrifice.

horst · 05-Oct-11, 12:10pm

I had an epiphany on monday night after watching The Secret Life of Chaos (sbs) and QandA straight after.
The secret life of chaos was about discovering the mechanism for evolution, and it was conceived by Alan Turing who is essentially the inventor of modern computing.

The idea is that simple systems have a habit of self organizing according to many simple rules that produce structure, so as an example, a big pile of sand and wind will self organize into sand dunes over time, the shape and structure of these sand dunes we know very well, but precisely where the ridges and valleys are going to be we can not predict.

You may have to watch the program to grasp just how profound this idea is because it can explain the structure of the universe as well as the mechanism for biological evolution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uF7gdlTrCQY

So when I was watching QandA (which btw was the best episode ever) it occurred to me that this idea can be applied to many other things like social and economic systems.
So these ideas present themselves: for one there is no true capitalist or true socialist country, this is important because we didn't decide this, it self organized itself, which is obviously true because there was never a a conference where we decided, yes lets be capitalists now, it evolved that way according to many simple rules from many different actors. You can argue that we did precisely that, because there are socialist as well as capitalist countries, but I think that's just incidences of tinkering with some rules, the evolution of the system you can not stop, we know they are constantly morphing and by the reality of globalism are infact converging (cf China)

So this has a number of important consequences:
We can not choose our economic system, it self organizes and there's always ever only one, we may try and push one way or another by creating different rules, but the sheer number of rules (and the rules that can't be altered like the amount of oil you have) mean that the result is not predictable, it will be recognizable like you recognize a sand dune, but how it will look like you can not know (that's a property of chaos theory).

So as far as I see, it the driver for our predominately capitalist society has been our ability to increase the RATE of energy production, since this is coming to an end this will also mean the end to a predominately capitalist society, and there is nothing we can do about it, all we can do is steer it like a raft going down a wild river.
That means that it's pretty futile trying to lay blame or find particular causes, like who or who isn't reproducing, it was always going to be this way.

claude glass · 05-Oct-11, 12:36pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by horst

I had an epiphany on monday night after watching The Secret Life of Chaos (sbs) and QandA straight after.
The secret life of chaos was about discovering the mechanism for evolution, and it was conceived by Alan Turing who is essentially the inventor of modern computing.

The idea is that simple systems have a habit of self organizing according to many simple rules that produce structure, so as an example, a big pile of sand and wind will self organize into sand dunes over time, the shape and structure of these sand dunes we know very well, but precisely where the ridges and valleys are going to be we can not predict.

You may have to watch the program to grasp just how profound this idea is because it can explain the structure of the universe as well as the mechanism for biological evolution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uF7gdlTrCQY

So when I was watching QandA (which btw was the best episode ever) it occurred to me that this idea can be applied to many other things like social and economic systems.
So these ideas present themselves: for one there is no true capitalist or true socialist country, this is important because we didn't decide this, it self organized itself, which is obviously true because there was never a a conference where we decided, yes lets be capitalists now, it evolved that way according to many simple rules from many different actors. You can argue that we did precisely that, because there are socialist as well as capitalist countries, but I think that's just incidences of tinkering with some rules, the evolution of the system you can not stop, we know they are constantly morphing and by the reality of globalism are infact converging (cf China)

So this has a number of important consequences:
We can not choose our economic system, it self organizes and there's always ever only one, we may try and push one way or another by creating different rules, but the sheer number of rules (and the rules that can't be altered like the amount of oil you have) mean that the result is not predictable, it will be recognizable like you recognize a sand dune, but how it will look like you can not know (that's a property of chaos theory).

So as far as I see, it the driver for our predominately capitalist society has been our ability to increase the RATE of energy production, since this is coming to an end this will also mean the end to a predominately capitalist society, and there is nothing we can do about it, all we can do is steer it like a raft going down a wild river.
That means that it's pretty futile trying to lay blame or find particular causes, like who or who isn't reproducing, it was always going to be this way.

Look up dynamical systems, emergence and actor-network theory

and yes, growth relies on energy, no such thing as a free lunch

claude glass · 05-Oct-11, 12:40pm

and re QandA, I thought Kate Adie owned Mona Eltahaway's nauseating egotism, and I thought Tony Jones' treatment of Zizek was pretty condescending.

big eddie · 05-Oct-11, 12:44pm

See I stopped watching QandA a few weeks ago because it got too stupid, then they apparently have the best one ever fml.

horst · 05-Oct-11, 12:50pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

and re QandA, I thought Kate Adie owned Mona Eltahaway's nauseating egotism, and I thought Tony Jones' treatment of Zizek was pretty condescending.

To be fair that was more a reaction to Zizek shooting off on tangents at speed, which I did enjoy very much, but not helpful to a smooth running panel show.

horst · 05-Oct-11, 12:51pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by big eddie

See I stopped watching QandA a few weeks ago because it got too stupid, then they apparently have the best one ever fml.

iview
abc2 some time this week in the middle of the night

Geezah · 05-Oct-11, 12:54pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

and re QandA, I thought Kate Adie owned Mona Eltahaway's nauseating egotism, and I thought Tony Jones' treatment of Zizek was pretty condescending.

Kate Adie, Slavoi Zizek and Jon Ronson were all good value. Especially Zizek (him giving the finger to Jones was awesome). It was easily the best Q & A in a very long time, focused as it was on general issues important to all people, rather than the myopic, asylum seekers and Gillard leadership questions that seem to be asked every single week, with pollies giving answers on party lines every single week.

And fuck the tweets off. Most of them aren't funny, it's just distracting and annoying. Now The Drum has started doing it. Aaaaaaaaaaaarrrrgh. Have we become so vain that we need to be part of the news for it to be worthy of our attention?

big eddie · 05-Oct-11, 12:58pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geezah

Kate Adie, Slavoi Zizek and Jon Ronson were all good value. Especially Zizek (him giving the finger to Jones was awesome). It was easily the best Q & A in a very long time, focused as it was on general issues important to all people, rather than the myopic, asylum seekers and Gillard leadership questions that seem to be asked every single week, with pollies giving answers on party lines every single week.

And fuck the tweets off. Most of them aren't funny, it's just distracting and annoying. Now The Drum has started doing it. Aaaaaaaaaaaarrrrgh. Have we become so vain that we need to be part of the news for it to be worthy of our attention?

Be more Gen X

Geezah · 05-Oct-11, 01:01pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by horst

To be fair that was more a reaction to Zizek shooting off on tangents at speed, which I did enjoy very much, but not helpful to a smooth running panel show.

I also enjoyed them. They were ace, but Jones had to do something, because Zizek has some mad ability to go on long rambling disseminations. So much so that you felt that Zizek's first answer could also be his and the show's last. Funny as fuck though.

Vital · 05-Oct-11, 01:02pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by robin78

Or maybe they just don't want to add to the world's biggest problem.

There's only 3 reasons ( and a host of variations on those 3) why people have children and none of them have anything to do with selflessness:

- you think you can do a better job than your parents
- you want your superior genes to continue on
- you want something to entertain you now and into the future

There's really only one:

- having a compatible future organ donor.

You were taking this piss, right? I can't tell with you.

Geezah · 05-Oct-11, 01:05pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by big eddie

Be more Gen X

In the words of Roger Greenberg (Ben Stiller) talking to Gen Y's at a party after doing a line of coke:

Quote:

The thing about you kids is that you're all kind of insensitive. I'm glad I grew up when I did cos your parents were too perfect at parenting- all that baby Mozart and Dan Zanes songs; you're just so sincere and interested in things! There's a confidence in you guys that's horrifying. You're all ADD and carpal tunnel. You wouldn't know Agoraphobia if it bit you in the ass, and it makes you mean. You say things to someone like me who's older and smarter with this light air... I'm freaked out by you kids. I hope I die before I end up meeting one of you in a job interview.

gravyishot · 05-Oct-11, 01:11pm

That was the only decent bit in that shitty movie

Vital · 05-Oct-11, 01:29pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by horst

iview
abc2 some time this week in the middle of the night

Or you can do what I do and download it at work: http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3326264.htm

didjeridude · 05-Oct-11, 01:29pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

How much you can sell your kids for on the black market.

http://cdn.8ball.co.uk/tshirts/blues...e-yellow_l.jpg

oh btw I found out how much you are worth at the Salvo's on Glebe pt rd the other day CG.....

80 bucks! Woohoo!

http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/7421/imag0085jp.jpg

took that photo especially for you

claude glass · 05-Oct-11, 01:32pm

aww shucks

horst · 05-Oct-11, 01:33pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

Look up dynamical systems, emergence and actor-network theory

I had a quick skim, but do these disciplines recognize self organization that is central to this idea of principal "driver"?

dbb618 · 05-Oct-11, 01:34pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by big eddie

See I stopped watching QandA a few weeks ago because it got too stupid, then they apparently have the best one ever fml.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3299476.html

Geezah · 05-Oct-11, 01:36pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by gravyishot

That was the only decent bit in that shitty movie

I agree it wasn't the best. Greenberg was so unlikable. It had a couple of other good moments, like when Greenberg and his mate and the main girl are having dinner at a diner for his birthday. That was pretty funny I thought. But yeah, it was pretty painful as movies go.

claude glass · 05-Oct-11, 01:40pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by horst

I had a quick skim, but do these disciplines recognize self organization that is central to this idea of principal "driver"?

To a greater or lesser extent. Sand dunes are also used as an example of an emergent system. But I think it's good to look at how complex systems work from a number of different viewpoints.

gravyishot · 05-Oct-11, 01:57pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geezah

I agree it wasn't the best. Greenberg was so unlikable. It had a couple of other good moments, like when Greenberg and his mate and the main girl are having dinner at a diner for his birthday. That was pretty funny I thought. But yeah, it was pretty painful as movies go.

It looked like it was filmed through that instragram app.

big eddie · 05-Oct-11, 02:01pm

What movie are we talking about here?

Geezah · 05-Oct-11, 03:06pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by big eddie

What movie are we talking about here?

Greenberg starring Ben Stiller, Rhys Ifans, Greta Gerwig.

Directed by Noah Baumbach who did The Squid and the Whale (good), and Margot's Wedding (shithouse).

I'll save you a lot of time, here's the scene we are talking about.

Media Player

Kid A · 05-Oct-11, 03:25pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by horst

I had an epiphany on monday night

might be of interest:
http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/9/3/reviews/edmonds.gif

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

Mona Eltahaway's nauseating egotism.

Right on. Woman hurt my brain.

I thought the whole thing, whilst being entertaining, ended up being a load of hot air. Too many egos, too much story telling, too much emotive ranting with not enough theory. 1 hour wasn't long enough.

DJ Squiggle +	04-Oct-11, 04:58pm #101 intolerance will not be tolerated
Joined Feb '08 Times thanked < 2 Posts 164	Quote: Originally Posted by buffed It's largely irrelevant whether education or some other reason is causing that, but at the end of the day, less people are choosing to start families and that reflects a change in values more than anything else IMO The particular changes in values that you list do not apply in developing non-Western countries. The changes in values associated with education do apply to ALL countries. And yet you call the latter irrelevant? The changes in values that you are concerned about are ones I am concerned about also but as a qualified satistician I am stating that your connections with fertility are not ruled out, but there is no actual evidence. To rule them in, you would need to argue that their effect ADDS to the education effect and that the decline is greater than it otherwise would be. Even if you are right, that would be pretty hard to do. For that reason this sub-thread is a bit of a dead end and not much better than he-said, she-said gossip from here in. DBB618 has stated facts that can be backed by hard statistical data... a much more fruitful line of discussion. I don't think anyone here cares about my opionion, his opnion, or your opinion. I am sick of a media that encourages callers to tweet or phone in their opinions. That only matters to the insecure people who want to follow the crowd. The rest of us will use reason. In this forum it seems that crowd=reason.
	Be the first<like Quote

buffed +	04-Oct-11, 05:37pm #102 Registered User
Joined Mar '03 Times thanked < 51 Posts 13,911	Quote: Originally Posted by DJ Squiggle The particular changes in values that you list do not apply in developing non-Western countries. The changes in values associated with education do apply to ALL countries. And yet you call the latter irrelevant? The changes in values that you are concerned about are ones I am concerned about also but as a qualified satistician I am stating that your connections with fertility are not ruled out, but there is no actual evidence. To rule them in, you would need to argue that their effect ADDS to the education effect and that the decline is greater than it otherwise would be. Even if you are right, that would be pretty hard to do. For that reason this sub-thread is a bit of a dead end and not much better than he-said, she-said gossip from here in. DBB618 has stated facts that can be backed by hard statistical data... a much more fruitful line of discussion. I don't think anyone here cares about my opionion, his opnion, or your opinion. I am sick of a media that encourages callers to tweet or phone in their opinions. That only matters to the insecure people who want to follow the crowd. The rest of us will use reason. In this forum it seems that crowd=reason. with respect to you the reasons i quoted were from the Parliamentary library, they weren't my opinion. i quote below from the Department of the prime minister's study into fertility in 2008 "Australia’s fertility has been influenced by a change in the profile of Australia’s parents and, in particular, an increase in the age of mothers and fathers associated with partnering later" "There is likely to be a number of reasons why parents are having smaller families, including increasing participation of women in higher education and employment, changing attitudes to family size, lifestyle choices, greater access to contraceptive measures and abortion and other complex factors" "The AIFS survey also found that for women who had not had children, the preference of having no children or only one child became progressively more popular as they got older. Reasons for remaining childless included being single or having a partner who already had children, having postponed having a child and now feeling too old to cope with raising children, or infertility problems experienced by themselves or their partner."
	Be the first<like Quote

Geezah +	04-Oct-11, 06:22pm #103 does enjoy a paradigm or two: dig it, yeah baby!
Joined Sep '03 Times thanked < 252 Posts 7,865	Quote: Originally Posted by buffed with respect to you the reasons i quoted were from the Parliamentary library, they weren't my opinion. i quote below from the Department of the prime minister's study into fertility in 2008 "Australia’s fertility has been influenced by a change in the profile of Australia’s parents and, in particular, an increase in the age of mothers and fathers associated with partnering later" "There is likely to be a number of reasons why parents are having smaller families, including increasing participation of women in higher education and employment, changing attitudes to family size, lifestyle choices, greater access to contraceptive measures and abortion and other complex factors" "The AIFS survey also found that for women who had not had children, the preference of having no children or only one child became progressively more popular as they got older. Reasons for remaining childless included being single or having a partner who already had children, having postponed having a child and now feeling too old to cope with raising children, or infertility problems experienced by themselves or their partner." And no mention of the 70's feminist movement.
	Be the first<like Quote

buffed +	04-Oct-11, 09:26pm #104 Registered User
Joined Mar '03 Times thanked < 51 Posts 13,911	Quote: Originally Posted by Geezah And no mention of the 70's feminist movement. contraception, abortion, increased labor force participation etc just fel out of the sky did they?
	Be the first<like Quote

Griggle +	04-Oct-11, 09:40pm #105 If it is prophylactic and emphatically didactic, then it's not tactic."
Joined May '02 Times thanked < 204 Posts 6,342	Increased labor force participation came about as a direct result of World War II not 70's feminism and oh shit Godwin's.
	Be the first<like Quote

inthemix.com.au: australian dance music | news | reviews | photos | forums | chat | what's on

View AllcloseChatterbox

View AllcloseYour Feed

closeMy Menu

closeStatus

Current Affairs and Politics

The Growth Fetish

Quick Reply

Posting Rules