Nature striking back?

[M Winther]

"Chinese Scientists warn of Deadly new Coronavirus"
http://www.eutimes.net/2013/03/chinese-scientists-warn-of-deadly-new-coronavirus/

My comment:
Virus plays an important role in maintaining the balance in the natural
system. In order for the earth to be saved, it is becoming more and more
evident that nature must strike back by killing off billions of human
beings. It is a forbidden thought, but natural scientists are thinking
it, although not publicly.

M. Winther

[DonH]

"M Winther" <ml...@swipnet.se> wrote in message
news:515a8dc4$0$3756$c83e...@weathergirl-read.tele2.net...

# Man versus Nature is a no-brainer, as we are part of Nature (like it or
not), while Nature can do without us, no problem.
True, our manipulation of natural forces has led to civilisation, and its
benefits, and Nature has been able to cope with our excesses - until now.
However, at a world population of seven billion, the species Homo Sapiens
is imposing too great a strain on its environment, and ecological collapse
seems imminent.
Malthus and Erhlich were not wrong, merely premature.
The planet Earth is a finite realm, and we ignore this at our peril.
If we cannot restrain our population numbers, then we are likely facing
decimation, even extinction, and in the short term. Only China has a
population (one child) policy.
Nature recycles everything, and so should we. Anything not recycled
ends up as landfill, and we are running out of disused quarry sites. Well,
maybe not in Australia, just yet.
And burying waste (including nuclear) may come back to haunt us.
Yeah, not long to go for Homo Sap. A brilliant, if short, Rise and
Fall.

[abelard]

On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 05:05:25 +1100, "DonH" <donlhu...@bigpond.com>
wrote:

>"M Winther" <ml...@swipnet.se> wrote in message
>news:515a8dc4$0$3756$c83e...@weathergirl-read.tele2.net...
>> "Chinese Scientists warn of Deadly new Coronavirus"
>> http://www.eutimes.net/2013/03/chinese-scientists-warn-of-deadly-new-coronavirus/
>>
>> My comment:
>> Virus plays an important role in maintaining the balance in the natural
>> system. In order for the earth to be saved, it is becoming more and more
>> evident that nature must strike back by killing off billions of human
>> beings. It is a forbidden thought, but natural scientists are thinking it,
>> although not publicly.
>>
>> M. Winther
>>
>>
>
># Man versus Nature is a no-brainer, as we are part of Nature (like it or
>not), while Nature can do without us, no problem.
> True, our manipulation of natural forces has led to civilisation, and its
>benefits, and Nature has been able to cope with our excesses - until now.
> However, at a world population of seven billion, the species Homo Sapiens
>is imposing too great a strain on its environment, and ecological collapse
>seems imminent.

by what possible route?

at present you have billions of meat animals eating food
that you could eat...

> Malthus and Erhlich were not wrong, merely premature.
> The planet Earth is a finite realm, and we ignore this at our peril.
> If we cannot restrain our population numbers, then we are likely facing
>decimation, even extinction, and in the short term

the population shows every sign of moving towards a peak...
and then shrinking...

>. Only China has a
>population (one child) policy.
> Nature recycles everything, and so should we. Anything not recycled
>ends up as landfill, and we are running out of disused quarry sites. Well,
>maybe not in Australia, just yet.
> And burying waste (including nuclear) may come back to haunt us.

and may not

> Yeah, not long to go for Homo Sap. A brilliant, if short, Rise and
>Fall.

you may wish...because you are very very old and an envious socialist

[DonH]

"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in message
news:1h7ml8d4a7mt23e65...@4ax.com...

# Hmm. I don't see any refutation of my contention, only the typical ad
hominem attack.

[Arrogant Liars & Pretenders]

Refutation #1. Collapse eh?

>>
>> at present you have billions of meat animals eating food
>> that you could eat...
>>
>>> Malthus and Erhlich were not wrong, merely premature.
>>> The planet Earth is a finite realm, and we ignore this at our peril.
>>> If we cannot restrain our population numbers, then we are likely
>>> facing
>>> decimation, even extinction, and in the short term
>>
>> the population shows every sign of moving towards a peak...
>> and then shrinking...

Refutation #2.

>>
>>> . Only China has a
>>> population (one child) policy.
>>> Nature recycles everything, and so should we. Anything not recycled
>>> ends up as landfill, and we are running out of disused quarry sites.
>>> Well,
>>> maybe not in Australia, just yet.
>>> And burying waste (including nuclear) may come back to haunt us.
>>
>> and may not
>>
>>> Yeah, not long to go for Homo Sap. A brilliant, if short, Rise and
>>> Fall.
>>
>> you may wish...because you are very very old and an envious socialist
>
> # Hmm. I don't see any refutation of my contention, only the typical ad
> hominem attack.
>

See above. Try again.

>




--
"Whatever you hear on budget night is crap"
Joe Hockey, March 2012

"The most concerning aspects of Mr. Conroy's enormous power are his
infantile understanding of how business actually operates, and his Obeid
like devotion to his cronies".
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/3/21/national-affairs/end-line-conroy#ixzz2O8MmFKkl



"Wayne Swan was explicitly asked to rule out a further increase in the
debt limit above the current limit of
$300 billion. He steadfastly refused".
http://liberal.org.au/latest-news/2013/03/13/swan-refuses-rule-out-increase-debt-limit-above-300-billion

Swan...
"The course of action I'm talking about today really comes very much, I
guess, to the core of my values and the values of the Labor Party"

Paul Howes...
"Labor has an obligation to stop extremists who threaten our democracy"

How much new law is there every year?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lePrBUHihKI

Tony Abbott...
"You do not save the environment by killing the economy"

"It's not about popularity, it's about gaining respect, and she hasn't
got it yet"
(Australian of the Year, 2013)

[DonH]

"Arrogant Liars & Pretenders" <bjfost...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:as0q20...@mid.individual.net...

# Ah, yes. Sorry, I missed it, by going straight to the bottom.
Meat animals?
Yes, vegetarianism has been proposed as a partial solution, but it has
problems.
The human gut makes us omnivorous, unlike the long gut of a cow, or short
gut of a dog.
While we can be entirely vegetarian, we'd have to eat much more greens,
etc, to get same amount of nutrition as per an omnivorous diet.
Also, farting by us would then compensate for cows and their methane
emissions.
Again, it is only domestication which saves many species from
extinction.
Once cows are no longer needed, they wouldn't last long - except in
India.
As for human population reaching a peak, then shrinking, this is
possible, especially in the West and Russia, but less so in Africa, Asia,
and South America.
Then there is human hyper-activity, and Action Man is everywhere,
Developing, making a Profit, and generally Doing Things. Our massive
Technology, if not over-population, will help our demise.
Yeah, you can't stop Progress, eh - Lemmings?

[Arrogant Liars & Pretenders]

The 'Limits to Growth' were well documented in the 1970s.

[abelard]

On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 07:04:32 +1100, "DonH" <donlhu...@bigpond.com>
wrote:

here is a readable recent survey
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Peoplequake/dp/1905811349/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1364934691&sr=1-1

[jg]

On 3/04/2013 2:09 AM, abelard wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 05:05:25 +1100, "DonH" <donlhu...@bigpond.com>
> wrote:
>
>> "M Winther" <ml...@swipnet.se> wrote in message
>> news:515a8dc4$0$3756$c83e...@weathergirl-read.tele2.net...
>>> "Chinese Scientists warn of Deadly new Coronavirus"
>>> http://www.eutimes.net/2013/03/chinese-scientists-warn-of-deadly-new-coronavirus/
>>>
>>> My comment:
>>> Virus plays an important role in maintaining the balance in the natural
>>> system. In order for the earth to be saved, it is becoming more and more
>>> evident that nature must strike back by killing off billions of human
>>> beings. It is a forbidden thought, but natural scientists are thinking it,
>>> although not publicly.
>>>
>>> M. Winther
>>>
>>>
>>
>> # Man versus Nature is a no-brainer, as we are part of Nature (like it or
>> not), while Nature can do without us, no problem.
>> True, our manipulation of natural forces has led to civilisation, and its
>> benefits, and Nature has been able to cope with our excesses - until now.
>> However, at a world population of seven billion, the species Homo Sapiens
>> is imposing too great a strain on its environment, and ecological collapse
>> seems imminent.
>
> by what possible route?
>
> at present you have billions of meat animals eating food
> that you could eat...
>

And as populations become more affluent they like to eat more meat.
Bowl of rice a day is not how anyone wants to live.

>> Malthus and Erhlich were not wrong, merely premature.
>> The planet Earth is a finite realm, and we ignore this at our peril.
>> If we cannot restrain our population numbers, then we are likely facing
>> decimation, even extinction, and in the short term
>
> the population shows every sign of moving towards a peak...
> and then shrinking...
>

With China considering lifting its one child policy and govts taking
'growth' to mean population, it's gonna get bigger first.

>> . Only China has a
>> population (one child) policy.
>> Nature recycles everything, and so should we. Anything not recycled
>> ends up as landfill, and we are running out of disused quarry sites. Well,
>> maybe not in Australia, just yet.
>> And burying waste (including nuclear) may come back to haunt us.
>
> and may not
>
>> Yeah, not long to go for Homo Sap. A brilliant, if short, Rise and
>> Fall.
>
> you may wish...because you are very very old and an envious socialist
>

Who would wish that, but how is it not going to happen?

[abelard]

those are not the only choices

>>> Malthus and Erhlich were not wrong, merely premature.
>>> The planet Earth is a finite realm, and we ignore this at our peril.
>>> If we cannot restrain our population numbers, then we are likely facing
>>> decimation, even extinction, and in the short term
>>
>> the population shows every sign of moving towards a peak...
>> and then shrinking...

>With China considering lifting its one child policy and govts taking
>'growth' to mean population, it's gonna get bigger first.

that is a gross simplification...eg, there is an immense shortage
of young females...

further, many populations continue to grow for a while, well
after the (local) birthrate has fallen below replacement levels...
(life span is increasing)

ps, replacement rates are different according to circs...
eg in parts of africa it is above 3 (because of aids)

>>> . Only China has a
>>> population (one child) policy.
>>> Nature recycles everything, and so should we. Anything not recycled
>>> ends up as landfill, and we are running out of disused quarry sites. Well,
>>> maybe not in Australia, just yet.
>>> And burying waste (including nuclear) may come back to haunt us.
>>
>> and may not
>>
>>> Yeah, not long to go for Homo Sap. A brilliant, if short, Rise and
>>> Fall.
>>
>> you may wish...because you are very very old and an envious socialist

>Who would wish that, but how is it not going to happen?

like the previous poster, you have given no reasoning for your
assertion...

further, i'm not in the business of trying to prove negatives...

if you believe something is going to happen, you must at least suggest
some vaguely plausible mechanism

[jg]

No, but it's the choice developing populations invariably take.

>>>> Malthus and Erhlich were not wrong, merely premature.
>>>> The planet Earth is a finite realm, and we ignore this at our peril.
>>>> If we cannot restrain our population numbers, then we are likely facing
>>>> decimation, even extinction, and in the short term
>>>
>>> the population shows every sign of moving towards a peak...
>>> and then shrinking...
>
>> With China considering lifting its one child policy and govts taking
>> 'growth' to mean population, it's gonna get bigger first.
>
> that is a gross simplification...eg, there is an immense shortage
> of young females...
>
> further, many populations continue to grow for a while, well
> after the (local) birthrate has fallen below replacement levels...
> (life span is increasing)
>
> ps, replacement rates are different according to circs...
> eg in parts of africa it is above 3 (because of aids)
>

http://www.joshuaproject.net/world-clock.php

Any proof at all, even that the growth rate is slowing?

>>>> . Only China has a
>>>> population (one child) policy.
>>>> Nature recycles everything, and so should we. Anything not recycled
>>>> ends up as landfill, and we are running out of disused quarry sites. Well,
>>>> maybe not in Australia, just yet.
>>>> And burying waste (including nuclear) may come back to haunt us.
>>>
>>> and may not
>>>
>>>> Yeah, not long to go for Homo Sap. A brilliant, if short, Rise and
>>>> Fall.
>>>
>>> you may wish...because you are very very old and an envious socialist
>
>> Who would wish that, but how is it not going to happen?
>
> like the previous poster, you have given no reasoning for your
> assertion...
>
> further, i'm not in the business of trying to prove negatives...
>
> if you believe something is going to happen, you must at least suggest
> some vaguely plausible mechanism
>

Umm, it's not really in dispute that world population is growing.
You are the one who thinks it has stopped.

On what basis do you think increasing populations are some sort of
socialist agenda??

[abelard]

that requires a complex sum of the stats for around 200 countries...

i don't have such a data bank to hand...but you may well be able
to find one...

china is now very concerned about its aging population....
(aged people mostly don't have children!)
that's approx 1/6th the world's population...

growth is slowing almost everywhere....

meanwhile if you are in country with half the population below
16...you can expect the population to keep growing for a
good while to come...
here is a useful data bank
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/rankorderguide.html

you may also find this on the individual country pages

this is for afghanistan:-

Age structure:

0-14 years: 43.2% (male 6,671,683/female 6,460,034)
15-24 years: 21.6% (male 3,357,679/female 3,226,394)
25-54 years: 28.9% (male 4,487,547/female 4,306,297)
55-64 years: 3.8% (male 569,490/female 588,925)
65 years and over: 2.5% (male 350,692/female 401,187) (2012 est.)

>>>>> . Only China has a
>>>>> population (one child) policy.
>>>>> Nature recycles everything, and so should we. Anything not recycled
>>>>> ends up as landfill, and we are running out of disused quarry sites. Well,
>>>>> maybe not in Australia, just yet.
>>>>> And burying waste (including nuclear) may come back to haunt us.
>>>>
>>>> and may not
>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, not long to go for Homo Sap. A brilliant, if short, Rise and
>>>>> Fall.
>>>>
>>>> you may wish...because you are very very old and an envious socialist
>>
>>> Who would wish that, but how is it not going to happen?
>>
>> like the previous poster, you have given no reasoning for your
>> assertion...
>>
>> further, i'm not in the business of trying to prove negatives...
>>
>> if you believe something is going to happen, you must at least suggest
>> some vaguely plausible mechanism
>>
>Umm, it's not really in dispute that world population is growing.
>You are the one who thinks it has stopped.

ho hum...i've said no such thing...the consensus is that it
is moving towards peaking...
a different thing

>On what basis do you think increasing populations are some sort of
>socialist agenda??

i don't...i think they are some sort of evolutional
agenda/imperative/drive...

[jg]

Nup, only data showing it's still growing. As I said it will get worse
before it gets better, and so does the damage we do.

It will get worse before it gets better.

>> On what basis do you think increasing populations are some sort of
>> socialist agenda??
>
> i don't...i think they are some sort of evolutional
> agenda/imperative/drive...
>

Then why did you write 'you may wish...because you are very very old and
an envious socialist'?

[abelard]

On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 02:41:36 +0800, jg <j...@nospam.com> wrote:


>Then why did you write 'you may wish...because you are very very old and
>an envious socialist'?

socialists always want things to be presented as badder and worser...

that way they can try 'sorting' it out by killing another 10,000,000
or more

[jg]

That'd be why the Greens say "The continuing rapid increase in the human
population has the potential to adversely affect national or
international outcomes in environmental sustainability, human health and
welfare, and other areas. Current rates of resource use are not
sustainable and are compounded by inequitable distribution of wealth and
power."

Who else acknowledges that?

It's not socialists who are giving a brat bonus or promoting immigration
on an 'industrial' scale.

[abelard]

On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 03:25:44 +0800, jg <j...@nospam.com> wrote:

>On 4/04/2013 3:01 AM, abelard wrote:
>> On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 02:41:36 +0800, jg <j...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Then why did you write 'you may wish...because you are very very old and
>>> an envious socialist'?
>>
>> socialists always want things to be presented as badder and worser...
>>
>> that way they can try 'sorting' it out by killing another 10,000,000
>> or more

>That'd be why the Greens say "The continuing rapid increase in the human
>population has the potential to adversely affect national or
>international outcomes in environmental sustainability, human health and
>welfare, and other areas. Current rates of resource use are not
>sustainable and are compounded by inequitable distribution of wealth and
>power."

i've been to their meetings...every one a socialist...fortunately
without the power to kill people

every one a would be adolf or stalin

>Who else acknowledges that?
>
>It's not socialists who are giving a brat bonus or promoting immigration
>on an 'industrial' scale.

yeah i know...fascist 'new' labour aren't real(tm) socialists

[jg]

On 4/04/2013 3:29 AM, abelard wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 03:25:44 +0800, jg <j...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/04/2013 3:01 AM, abelard wrote:
>>> On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 02:41:36 +0800, jg <j...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Then why did you write 'you may wish...because you are very very old and
>>>> an envious socialist'?
>>>
>>> socialists always want things to be presented as badder and worser...
>>>
>>> that way they can try 'sorting' it out by killing another 10,000,000
>>> or more
>
>> That'd be why the Greens say "The continuing rapid increase in the human
>> population has the potential to adversely affect national or
>> international outcomes in environmental sustainability, human health and
>> welfare, and other areas. Current rates of resource use are not
>> sustainable and are compounded by inequitable distribution of wealth and
>> power."
>
> i've been to their meetings...every one a socialist...fortunately
> without the power to kill people
>

What evidence of them wanting to kill lots of people then, much less
wanting large populations?

> every one a would be adolf or stalin
>

What, were they planning WW3... against each other?

>> Who else acknowledges that?
>>
>> It's not socialists who are giving a brat bonus or promoting immigration
>> on an 'industrial' scale.
>
> yeah i know...fascist 'new' labour aren't real(tm) socialists
>

Yeah, and any govt providing public health, education and welfare, isn't
all capitalist either.

The challenge is not turning population around, it's keeping economies
afloat when and if it happens. That's something few if any govts know
how to do, I don't pretend to myself.

[abelard]

On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 04:48:53 +0800, jg <j...@nospam.com> wrote:

>On 4/04/2013 3:29 AM, abelard wrote:
>> On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 03:25:44 +0800, jg <j...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/04/2013 3:01 AM, abelard wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 02:41:36 +0800, jg <j...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Then why did you write 'you may wish...because you are very very old and
>>>>> an envious socialist'?
>>>>
>>>> socialists always want things to be presented as badder and worser...
>>>>
>>>> that way they can try 'sorting' it out by killing another 10,000,000
>>>> or more
>>
>>> That'd be why the Greens say "The continuing rapid increase in the human
>>> population has the potential to adversely affect national or
>>> international outcomes in environmental sustainability, human health and
>>> welfare, and other areas. Current rates of resource use are not
>>> sustainable and are compounded by inequitable distribution of wealth and
>>> power."
>>
>> i've been to their meetings...every one a socialist...fortunately
>> without the power to kill people
>>
>
>What evidence of them wanting to kill lots of people then, much less
>wanting large populations?

you're not going to follow...your irrational cult beliefs preclude you

[jg]

On 4/04/2013 5:27 AM, abelard wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 04:48:53 +0800, jg <j...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/04/2013 3:29 AM, abelard wrote:
>>> On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 03:25:44 +0800, jg <j...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/04/2013 3:01 AM, abelard wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 02:41:36 +0800, jg <j...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Then why did you write 'you may wish...because you are very very old and
>>>>>> an envious socialist'?
>>>>>
>>>>> socialists always want things to be presented as badder and worser...
>>>>>
>>>>> that way they can try 'sorting' it out by killing another 10,000,000
>>>>> or more
>>>
>>>> That'd be why the Greens say "The continuing rapid increase in the human
>>>> population has the potential to adversely affect national or
>>>> international outcomes in environmental sustainability, human health and
>>>> welfare, and other areas. Current rates of resource use are not
>>>> sustainable and are compounded by inequitable distribution of wealth and
>>>> power."
>>>
>>> i've been to their meetings...every one a socialist...fortunately
>>> without the power to kill people
>>>
>>
>> What evidence of them wanting to kill lots of people then, much less
>> wanting large populations?
>
> you're not going to follow...your irrational cult beliefs preclude you
>

I'm the one believing population has gone way too far and getting worse,
you are the one believing it's not so bad and getting better, and your
capitalist mates the ones stoking the fire with cash handouts for births
and obscene immigration rates.

Russia is about the only 'big' country showing some decline in
population - where's the socialist agenda there?

[abelard]

yes, i fully realise that facts don't count for cult socialists

[jg]

Which of the above is not fact?

http://www.worldometers.info/

[abelard]

do some work of your own...i'm not here to hand hold you

i am not a socialist government

[jg]

Yeah, you are here to make false, baseless claims.

[abelard]

name one you lazy minded chancer...

[jg]

That global population isn't going to worse before it gets better.

[abelard]

of course i said no such thing...try again...

meanwhile you are defining worse with about as much intelligence
as your previous maunderings manage..