"spiral out of control" until some limiting factor comes into effect.
---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_feedback
Positive feedback, sometimes referred to as "cumulative causation", refers to a situation where some effect causes more of itself. A system undergoing positive feedback is unstable, that is, it will tend to spiral out of control as the effect amplifies itself.
Technically, a system exhibiting positive feedback responds to perturbation in the same direction as the perturbation. That is, "A produces more of B which in turn produces more of A".[1] In contrast, a system that responds to the perturbation in the opposite direction is said to exhibit negative feedback. These concepts were first recognized as broadly applicable by Norbert Wiener in his 1948 work on cybernetics.[2]
The effect of a positive feedback loop is not necessarily "positive" in the sense of being desirable. Positive refers to the direction of change rather than the desirability of the outcome. A negative feedback loop tends to reduce or inhibit a process, while a positive feedback loop tends to expand or promote it.
Originally posted by zeeblebotOh great, you're back with Malthus now. Don't support the poor - they are dispensable and helping them makes things worse instead of better. Do we have to refute him again? You know, copying screeds from Wikopedia does sound informed but when you speak for yourself you are expressing the attitudes of a sociopath.
[b]"spiral out of control" until some limiting factor comes into effect.
Originally posted by zeeblebotHow many good productive jobs were wiped out in the recent credit crunch? And was that the fault of the workers?
who is supposed to give you a job? managers? owners? CEOs? or should you earn it yourself? shop steward? cadre chief?
how likely is it to get a job if you have a baby with no support?
As for getting a job with a baby to support, all the evidence shows it is harder to keep a job, to get a job and to improve your prospects in a job. Unless, that is, there is some element of social support - as the Scandinavians understand. In Anglo Saxon economies we bring up our children under conditions that harm us and our children.
Originally posted by zeeblebotAha that good old argument that if we help people with children then everybody will be wanting one including 12 year olds.
why not let 12-y-o's have kids?!? ... no need to support them, right? ...
You know that under-age pregnancy (whether brought to a live birth or terminated) is vastly greater in societies like the UK and the US than those like Holland (a model here) where sensible sex education starts in primary school, so that children are taught self respect and taught to negotiate relationships and protect themselves. In the Anglo Saxon culture where sex is equated with a few biological mechanics, and responsibility is allegedly restricted to unsupported parents, the results are diabolical.
The community - Society - has to accept responsibility if we do not want to carry on getting what we have got until now.
Originally posted by zeeblebotIt's the father's choice to make women pregnant. It's the woman's choice to carry that baby to term. Are you mandating that women must have abortions if they lack the resources to raise their child?
[b]in the US it's not the father's choice as to whether the kids are born, only the mother's. dropping the requirement that fathers provide support regardless of custody, mandating joint custody, and raising the bar for eligibility to maintain parental status could all reduce the no-income birth rate.
Dropping any requirement to for absent fathers to support their child is a fabulous idea which has been tried - it is in fact the norm that for most fathers, support is optional and guess what - they choose not to bother, often in spite of court proceedings to try and enforce payment. Fathers typically lack custody because they have abandoned the woman and child, or (often and) abused either or both.
What is this bar for eligibility to maintain parental status? Have you gone insane? I recall a state similar to the one you advocate - Germany from 1933 to 1945.
Originally posted by zeeblebotGood so far and the further corollary of course - such education cannot be left to parents. It is a social responsibility. Parenting is the business of the community and is not just a private concern.
that's not the argument ... but you're right, more sex ed is better.
i'm looking forward to when most instruction is done from computers and not with lecture.
an article the other day mentioned an new england principal who has got tailored (individually tailored!) computerized daily lessons for each student. wish i remember the article. this was discussed in SF by heinlein and anthony (and maybe panshin, and likely others) 20 to 40 years ago but haven't heard of it actually being practiced yet.